ReviewJournal of biomedical research2013
PET tracers and techniques for measuring myocardial blood flow in patients with coronary artery disease.
Review in Journal of biomedical research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of PET-derived myocardial blood flow parameters: A meta-analysis.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Reliability of rubidium-82 PET/CT for renal perfusion determination in healthy subjects.BMC nephrology · 2022Trial
- Intra-Individual Variability of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical impact of quantitative [Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Estimation of renal perfusion based on measurement of rubidium-82 clearance by PET/CT scanning in healthy subjects.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Review
- The continual innovation of commercial PET/CT solutions in nuclear cardiology: Siemens Healthineers.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
- Searching for novel PET radiotracers: imaging cardiac perfusion, metabolism and inflammation.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Review
- Assessment of myocardial blood flow and coronary flow reserve with positron emission tomography in ischemic heart disease: current state and future directions.Heart failure reviews · 2017Review
- The frontiers of nuclear cardiology research.Journal of biomedical research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment of the relative distribution of myocardial flow with myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is methodologically limited to predict the presence or absence of flow-limited coronary artery disease (CAD). This limitation may often occur, when obstructive lesions involve multiple epicardial coronary arteries or disease-related disturbances of the coronary circulation coexist at the microvascular level. Non-invasive assessment of myocardial blood flow in absolute units with position emission tomography (PET) has been positioned as the solution to improve CAD diagnosis and prediction of patient outcomes associated with risks for cardiac events. This article reviews technical and clinical aspects of myocardial blood flow quantitation with PET and discusses the practical consideration of this approach toward worldwide clinical utilization.
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.