Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21274660›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2011

Imaging of coronary inflammation with FDG-PET: feasibility and clinical hurdles.

Ian S Rogers, Ahmed Tawakol

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. [Biomolecules · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Advances in coronary molecular imaging: Leveraging the power of image processing.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The role of PET quantification in cardiovascular imaging.Clinical and translational imaging · 2014
    Article
  11. PET imaging of inflammation in atherosclerosis.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2014
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Molecular imaging in atherosclerosis: FDG PET.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2012
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ian S RogersDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Falk Cardiovascular Research Center, Stanford University, CA 94305-5406, USA. irogers@stanford.edu
Ahmed Tawakol
Harvard University · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional algorithms and noninvasive imaging tests for the identification of stable, hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease offer little insight into the detection of potentially vulnerable and inflamed coronary plaques, those most likely to rupture and cause acute coronary syndromes. Positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) serves as a potential novel modality for the identification of plaque inflammation, as initial studies in animal and human studies have demonstrated that FDG uptake correlates with macrophage accumulation and inflammation. Therapy with anti-inflammatory agents has also been demonstrated in the arterial vasculature to reduce plaque FDG uptake. Although imaging of coronary inflammation with FDG-PET holds tremendous promise, several hurdles remain to be surmounted prior to widespread clinical application.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsAlgorithmsCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsHumansInflammationPositron-Emission TomographyFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID21274660
OpenAlexW2067503148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.