ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2012
⁸²Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging is superior to ⁹⁹mTc-labelled agent SPECT in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance of PET Versus SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients with Smaller Left Ventricles: A Substudy of theJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2021Trial
- The Role of Cardiac PET in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Ischemic Heart Disease: Optimal Modality Across Different Patient Populations.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2023Review
- Quantitative myocardial perfusionJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Development, diagnostic performance, and interobserver agreement of aJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Cardiac 18F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography: An Accurate Tool to MonitorFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Applications of PET-MR Imaging in Cardiovascular Disorders.PET clinics · 2020Review
- Lost in quantification…: The influence of different software packages on flow quantification measures.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- The effect of time-of-flight and point spread function modeling onJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
- Left ventricular function in response to dipyridamole stress: head-to-head comparison betweenEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Article
- Cardiac Applications of PET-MR.Current cardiology reports · 2017Review
- SPECT myocardial blood flow quantitation toward clinical use: a comparative study withEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Article
- Disease-specific cardiovascular positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: a brief review of the current literature.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2016Review
- The value and appropriateness of positron emission tomography: an evolving tale.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015Article
- Story of Rubidium-82 and Advantages for Myocardial Perfusion PET Imaging.Frontiers in medicine · 2015Review
- Impact of point spread function modeling and time-of-flight on myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements for rubidium-82 cardiac PET.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2014Article
- Absolute myocardial flow quantification with (82)Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2014Article
- Crown years for non-invasive cardiovascular imaging (Part II): 40 years of nuclear cardiology.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2013Article
- PET and SPECT in heart failure.Current cardiology reports · 2013Review
- Quantitative PET/CT measures of myocardial flow reserve and atherosclerosis for cardiac risk assessment and predicting adverse patient outcomes.Current cardiology reports · 2013Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared the quality, interpretive confidence and interreader agreement between SPECT and PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in the same group of patients.
methodsThe study group comprised 27 patients (age 55 ± 8.5 years, 12 men) with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) who had undergone gated rest/stress MPI with (99m)Tc-labelled agent SPECT (with and without attenuation correction, AC), and subsequent clinical confirmation with (82)Rb PET. Three experienced readers blinded to the clinical information interpreted all MPI studies.
resultsInterreader agreement was significantly superior for PET studies than for SPECT studies. Following consensus interpretation, the quality of 22 % of the non-AC SPECT studies, 33 % of the AC SPECT studies and 63 % of the PET studies was assessed as excellent or good (p = 0.016). Interpretations were definitely normal or abnormal in 7 % of non-AC SPECT studies, 30 % of AC SPECT studies and 85 % of PET studies (p = 0.046). In 13 patients who had received either invasive coronary angiography or CT angiography with no significant CAD, the true-positive rate for significant CAD was higher for PET, and the true-negative rate was equal for PET and AC SPECT, and lower for non-AC SPECT.
conclusion(82)Rb PET MPI, used as a confirmatory test after SPECT, offers improved image quality, interpretive confidence and interreader agreement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22648514What 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.