Hybrid versus fusion imaging: are we moving forward judiciously?

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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Hybrid cardiac imaging: SPECT/CT and PET/CT. A joint position statement by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Society of Cardiac Radiology (ESCR) and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC).European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2011
   Guideline
2. Does hybrid diagnostic imaging in cardiology have the same significance as in oncology?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2011
   Article
3. Hybrid versus fusion imaging: some points of clarification.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2010
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Hybrid versus fusion imaging: some points of clarification.2010

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as