ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2013
Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to 82Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01519973 (Optimization of SPECT Cardiac Imaging Through Compensation for Attenuation, Resolution Loss and Scatter - The OSCARS), which is not on this 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.
Optimization of SPECT Cardiac Imaging Through Compensation for Attenuation, Resolution Loss and Scatter - The OSCARS
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left ventricular function in response to dipyridamole stress: head-to-head comparison betweenEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Article
- Scatter correction improves concordance in SPECT MPI with a dedicated cardiac SPECT solid-state camera.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015Article
- Comparative analysis of iterative reconstruction algorithms with resolution recovery for cardiac SPECT studies. A multi-center phantom study.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2014Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNew reconstruction algorithms allow reduction in acquisition times or the amount of injected radioactivity. We examined the impact of different corrections on low-count clinical SPECT myocardial perfusion images (MPI) and compared to (82)Rb PET/CT. We compared no corrections (NC) to attenuation correction (AC) with and without scatter correction by either a dual-energy-window (AC-DEW) or model-based (AC-ESSE) approach. All reconstructions included resolution recovery.
methods56 patients were imaged using a standard rest/stress Tc-99m-tetrofosmin MPI SPECT/CT protocol with an additional half-time acquisition. A (82)Rb-rest/stress PET/CT MPI was acquired within 4 weeks. Reconstruction methods were compared using summed rest/stress/difference scores from an objective algorithm (SRS/SSS/SDS).
resultsThe SRS and SSS for NC were significantly (P < .01) higher than for AC, but well correlated (r ≥ 0.87). The correlation in SRS/SSS among AC, AC-DEW, and AC-ESSE was excellent (r ≥ 0.98). AC-ESSE and AC-DEW had higher SRS (P ≤ .05) than AC, but the SDS values were not significantly different. Concordance with PET normal/abnormal classification was 76% for NC and ≥85% for the AC methods.
conclusionAC significantly improves the accuracy of low-count myocardial perfusion SPECT half-time imaging for the detection of disease compared to NC. Compared to PET, there was no significant difference among AC, AC-DEW, and AC-ESSE.
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.