Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24804144›Full record

ReviewCardiology research and practice2014

Filters in 2D and 3D Cardiac SPECT Image Processing.

Maria Lyra, Agapi Ploussi, Maritina Rouchota, Stella Synefia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cardiology research and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging.International journal of biomedical imaging · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maria Lyra1st Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Aretaieion Hospital, University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-2865-3241
Agapi Ploussi2nd Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Aretaieion Hospital, University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece.
Maritina Rouchota1st Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Aretaieion Hospital, University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-1988-0426
Stella Synefia1st Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Aretaieion Hospital, University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nuclear cardiac imaging is a noninvasive, sensitive method providing information on cardiac structure and physiology. Single photon emission tomography (SPECT) evaluates myocardial perfusion, viability, and function and is widely used in clinical routine. The quality of the tomographic image is a key for accurate diagnosis. Image filtering, a mathematical processing, compensates for loss of detail in an image while reducing image noise, and it can improve the image resolution and limit the degradation of the image. SPECT images are then reconstructed, either by filter back projection (FBP) analytical technique or iteratively, by algebraic methods. The aim of this study is to review filters in cardiac 2D, 3D, and 4D SPECT applications and how these affect the image quality mirroring the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT images. Several filters, including the Hanning, Butterworth, and Parzen filters, were evaluated in combination with the two reconstruction methods as well as with a specified MatLab program. Results showed that for both 3D and 4D cardiac SPECT the Butterworth filter, for different critical frequencies and orders, produced the best results. Between the two reconstruction methods, the iterative one might be more appropriate for cardiac SPECT, since it improves lesion detectability due to the significant improvement of image contrast.

Identifiers

PMID24804144
PMCPMC3988723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.