ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2009
Diagnosis of regional cerebral blood flow abnormalities using spect: agreement between individualized statistical parametric maps and visual inspection by nuclear medicine physicians with different levels of expertise in nuclear neurology.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the Berlin Grading System for moyamoya angiopathy with the use of [Neurosurgical review · 2022Article
- Renal statistical map for positron emission tomography with [O-15] water.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- Added Value of NeuroGam Software Analysis in Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Localization Diagnosis of Epilepsy in Interictal Stage.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVisual analysis is widely used to interpret regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) SPECT images in clinical practice despite its limitations. Automated methods are employed to investigate between-group rCBF differences in research studies but have rarely been explored in individual analyses.
objectivesTo compare visual inspection by nuclear physicians with the automated statistical parametric mapping program using a SPECT dataset of patients with neurological disorders and normal control images.
methodsUsing statistical parametric mapping, 14 SPECT images from patients with various neurological disorders were compared individually with a databank of 32 normal images using a statistical threshold of p<0.05 (corrected for multiple comparisons at the level of individual voxels or clusters). Statistical parametric mapping results were compared with visual analyses by a nuclear physician highly experienced in neurology (A) as well as a nuclear physician with a general background of experience (B) who independently classified images as normal or altered, and determined the location of changes and the severity.
resultsOf the 32 images of the normal databank, 4 generated maps showing rCBF abnormalities (p<0.05, corrected). Among the 14 images from patients with neurological disorders, 13 showed rCBF alterations. Statistical parametric mapping and physician A completely agreed on 84.37% and 64.28% of cases from the normal databank and neurological disorders, respectively. The agreement between statistical parametric mapping and ratings of physician B were lower (71.18% and 35.71%, respectively).
conclusionStatistical parametric mapping replicated the findings described by the more experienced nuclear physician. This finding suggests that automated methods for individually analyzing rCBF SPECT images may be a valuable resource to complement visual inspection in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.