ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2015
Effective risk stratification of patients on the basis of myocardial perfusion SPECT is dependent on appropriate patient selection.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- ASNC imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures : Standardized reporting of nuclear cardiology procedures.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- Appropriate use criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: Are they appropriate for women?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is commonly used in risk assessment, as an abnormal scan predicts a multifold increase in cardiac risk. Recent studies have showed that application of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) sharpens the prognostic value of SPECT-MPI, while inappropriate use is clinically ineffective and may lead to unnecessary downstream invasive testing and revascularization procedures. In this review, we will discuss recent literature examining the impact of appropriate use on the prognostic value of SPECT-MPI and downstream decision-making. We will also discuss the implications of appropriate use on cost-effectiveness of MPI.
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.