Viability assessment with MRI is superior to FDG-PET for viability: Con.

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. Noninvasive assessment myocardial viability: current status and future directions.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2013
   Review
2. The case for cardiac magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography multimodality imaging of myocardial viability.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2010
   Article
3. Assessing oral glucose and intravenous insulin loading protocol inWorld journal of nuclear medicine
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Viability assessment with MRI is superior to FDG-PET for viability: Pro.2010

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as