ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2014
Assessing clinical impact of myocardial perfusion studies: ischemia or other prognostic indicators?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multicenter trial of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy for refractory angina pectoris: report of the highly advanced medical treatment in Japan.Heart and vessels · 2019Trial
- Long-Term Prognostic Value in Nuclear Cardiology: Expert Scoring Combined with Automated Measurements vs. Angiographic Score.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- The Complementary Role of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Coronary Artery Disease: From Early Diagnosis to Tailored Management.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the major strengths of nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is the robust prognostic databases from observational studies demonstrating significantly different outcomes in patients with low-risk vs high-risk scans. The severity of the MPI defect can be semi-quantitated using the summed stress score (SSS) and summed difference score (SDS). SSS is more strongly associated with mortality, whereas SDS is the better predictor of subsequent coronary angiography and revascularization. The strength of MPI variables as prognostic indicators decreases when adjusted for prognostically important clinical and stress test variables. Nonetheless, most studies of general patient populations have demonstrated that MPI adds incremental prognostic value to clinical and stress test information. In contrast to these positive results from observational studies, the application of MPI ischemia as a treatment guide in several recent trials (DIAD, WOMEN, COURAGE, BARI 2D, STICH) has largely failed to identify patient subsets with improved outcome. This issue will continue to be investigated in the ongoing PROMISE and ISCHEMIA trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24585107What 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.