ArticleRadiology2015
Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Four Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion Estimation Methods Used in Cardiac MR Imaging: CE-MARC Substudy.
Article in Radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance expert consensus statement on quantitative myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceGuideline
- Accelerated stress CMR for the detection of significant coronary artery disease: a prospective randomized diagnostic accuracy study.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2026Trial
- Vascular effects of serelaxin in patients with stable coronary artery disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.Cardiovascular research · 2021Trial
- Importance of operator training and rest perfusion on the diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2018Trial
- Association of exercise blood pressure relative to fitness with coronary artery disease.Open heart · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prior coronary artery disease.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2025Article
- High-resolution quantification of stress perfusion defects by cardiac magnetic resonance.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2024Article
- Fully automated pixel-wise quantitative CMR-myocardial perfusion with CMR-coronary angiography to detect hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease.European radiology · 2023Article
- Sex- and age-specific normal values for automated quantitative pixel-wise myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2023Article
- Subclinical Systemic Sclerosis Primary Heart Involvement by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Shows No Significant Interval Change.ACR open rheumatology · 2023Article
- Qualitative and Quantitative Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Clinical Practice: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- AI-AIF: artificial intelligence-based arterial input function for quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance.European heart journal. Digital health · 2023Article
- Impact of Temporal Resolution and Methods for Correction on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Quantification.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Article
- Inflammation in Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Vasomotor Dysfunction in Patients with Ischemia and Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: Current Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Imaging Coronary Allograft Vasculopathy with Cardiac PET and Cardiac MRI.Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Spiral Whole-Heart Quantitative Adenosine Stress Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance With Motion Compensated L1-SPIRIT.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2021Article
- Cardiovascular outcomes in systemic sclerosis with abnormal cardiovascular MRI and serum cardiac biomarkers.RMD open · 2021Article
- Influence of the arterial input sampling location on the diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance stress myocardial perfusion quantification.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021Article
- Clinical associations with stage B heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of four tracer kinetic analysis methods to quantify myocardial perfusion from magnetic resonance (MR) imaging cardiac perfusion data sets in terms of their ability to lead to the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was approved by the regional ethics committee, and all patients gave written consent. A representative sample of 50 patients with suspected ischemic heart disease was retrospectively selected from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease trial data set. Quantitative myocardial blood flow (MBF) was estimated from rest and adenosine stress MR imaging perfusion data sets by using four established methods. A matching diagnosis of both an inducible defect as assessed with single photon emission computed tomography and a luminal stenosis of 70% or more as assessed with quantitative x-ray angiography was used as the reference standard for the presence of myocardial ischemia. Diagnostic performance was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for each method, with stress MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) serving as continuous measures.
resultsArea under the ROC curve with stress MBF and MPR as the outcome measures, respectively, was 0.86 and 0.92 for the Fermi model, 0.85 and 0.87 for the uptake model, 0.85 and 0.80 for the one-compartment model, and 0.87 and 0.87 for model-independent deconvolution. There was no significant difference between any of the models or between MBF and MPR, except that the Fermi model outperformed the one-compartment model if MPR was used as the outcome measure (P = .02).
conclusionDiagnostic performance of quantitative myocardial perfusion estimates is not affected by the tracer kinetic analysis method used.
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.