ArticleInternational journal of molecular imaging2012
Comparative Analysis between SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging and CT Coronary Angiography for Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease.
Article in International journal of molecular imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aims to discuss the relationship and difference between myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) using SPECT and CT coronary angiography (CTCA) for diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). Five hundred and four cases undergoing MPI and CTCA were comparatively analyzed, including fifty six patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography in the same period. Among patients with negative MPI results, negative or positive CTCA occupied 84.7% or 15.3%, respectively. Among patients with positive MPI, positive or negative CTCA occupied 67.2% or 32.8%, respectively. Among patients with negative CTCA, negative or positive MPI occupied 94.4% or 5.6%, respectively. Among patients with positive CTCA, positive or negative MPI occupied 40.2% or 59.8%, respectively. Negative predictive value was relatively higher than the positive predictive value for positive CTCA eliminating or predicting abnormal haemodynamics. And there was no significant difference for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MPI or CTCA in diagnosing CAD. Both MPI and CTCA have good diagnostic performance for CAD. They provide different and complementary information for diagnosis and evaluation of CAD, namely, detection of ischemia versus detection of atherosclerosis, which are quite different but have a definite internal link for each other.
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.