ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2010
Does myocardial perfusion imaging provide incremental prognostic information to left ventricular ejection fraction?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2010. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognosis in the era of comparative effectiveness research: where is nuclear cardiology now and where should it be?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2012Review
- Does imaging-guided selection of patients with ischemic heart failure for high risk revascularization improve identification of those with the highest clinical benefit?: Myocardial imaging should not exclude patients with ischemic heart failure from coronary revascularization.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2012Article
- Ischaemia change with revascularisation versus medical therapy in reduced ejection fraction.Open heartArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac nuclear imaging studies such as gated single photon emission computed tomography can offer assessment of myocardial perfusion and ventricular function. These two types of data can provide valuable information for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, prognosis, and optimal treatment strategies. Ejection fraction and other measures of ventricular function generally are the best predictors of mortality, whereas perfusion parameters and estimates of ischemic burden are often the best predictors of nonfatal cardiac events and response to revascularization; the combination of both can provide increased sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of significant coronary disease, and increased predictive power for outcomes. Recent data show that together they also add incremental value in predicting sudden cardiac death. Less commonly used modalities such as positron emission tomography may offer additional tools for quantification of perfusion and function at rest and at stress, with important clinical implications.
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.