Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25898845›Full record

Observational studyEuropean heart journal2015

Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices and radiation exposure: results from the 65 country IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Cross-Sectional Study (INCAPS).

Andrew J Einstein, Thomas N B Pascual, Mathew Mercuri, Ganesan Karthikeyan, João V Vitola, John J Mahmarian, Nathan Better, Salah E Bouyoucef, Henry Hee-Seung Bom, Vikram Lele and 15 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European heart journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
21.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficiency of tetrofosmin versus sestamibi achieved through shorter injection-to-imaging times: A systematic review of the literature.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Update of the Brazilian Guideline on Nuclear Cardiology - 2020.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020
    Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Quantitative and semi-quantitative comparison of myocardial blood flow betweenQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Deep learning-based denoising in projection-domain and reconstruction-domain for low-dose myocardial perfusion SPECT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Quality metrics for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: an ASNC information statement.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Optimization ofAnnals of nuclear cardiology · 2023
    Article
  20. Review

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 19 institutions in 14 countries.

Andrew J EinsteinDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA andrew.einstein@columbia.edu.
Thomas N B PascualSection of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Mathew MercuriDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Ganesan KarthikeyanDepartment of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
João V VitolaQuanta Diagnóstico & Terapia, Curitiba, Brazil.
John J MahmarianDepartment of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Nathan BetterDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Salah E BouyoucefCentre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Bab El Ouéd, Alger, Algeria.
Henry Hee-Seung BomDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
Vikram LeleDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET-CT, Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
V Peter C MagbooDepartment of Physical Sciences and Mathematics, University of the Philippines, Philippines Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Santo Tomas Hospital, Manila, Philippines.
Erick AlexándersonDepartamento de Cardiología Nuclear, Instituto Nacional de Cardiología 'Ignacio Chávez', Mexico, Mexico.
Adel H AllamCardiology Department, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mouaz H Al-MallahDivision of Advanced Cardiac Imaging, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyad, Saudi Arabia.
Albert FlotatsNuclear Medicine Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Scott JeromeIntersocietal Accreditation Commission, Ellicott City, MD, USA Division of Cardiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Philipp A KaufmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Cardiac Imaging, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Osnat LuxenburgMedical Technology and Infrastructure Administration, Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel Israeli Center for Technology Assessment in Health Care, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Leslee J ShawDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, and Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
S Richard UnderwoodNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, London, UK.
Madan M RehaniRadiation Protection of Patients Unit, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Ravi KashyapSection of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Diana PaezSection of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Maurizio DondiSection of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
INCAPS Investigators Group
International Atomic Energy Agency · ATAl-Azhar University · EGAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INCentre Hospitalo-Universitaire Bab El Oued · DZChonnam National University · KRColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USEmory Clinic · USHouston Methodist · USImperial College London · GBInstituto Nacional de Cardiología · MXIsrael National Institute for Health Policy Research · ILJaslok Hospital · INKing Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences · SANewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Santo Tomas Hospital · PH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo characterize patient radiation doses from nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the use of radiation-optimizing 'best practices' worldwide, and to evaluate the relationship between laboratory use of best practices and patient radiation dose. METHODS AND

resultsWe conducted an observational cross-sectional study of protocols used for all 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 nuclear cardiology laboratories in 65 countries for a single week in March-April 2013. Eight 'best practices' relating to radiation exposure were identified a priori by an expert committee, and a radiation-related quality index (QI) devised indicating the number of best practices used by a laboratory. Patient radiation effective dose (ED) ranged between 0.8 and 35.6 mSv (median 10.0 mSv). Average laboratory ED ranged from 2.2 to 24.4 mSv (median 10.4 mSv); only 91 (30%) laboratories achieved the median ED ≤ 9 mSv recommended by guidelines. Laboratory QIs ranged from 2 to 8 (median 5). Both ED and QI differed significantly between laboratories, countries, and world regions. The lowest median ED (8.0 mSv), in Europe, coincided with high best-practice adherence (mean laboratory QI 6.2). The highest doses (median 12.1 mSv) and low QI (4.9) occurred in Latin America. In hierarchical regression modelling, patients undergoing MPI at laboratories following more 'best practices' had lower EDs.

conclusionMarked worldwide variation exists in radiation safety practices pertaining to MPI, with targeted EDs currently achieved in a minority of laboratories. The significant relationship between best-practice implementation and lower doses indicates numerous opportunities to reduce radiation exposure from MPI globally.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageAgedCardiologyClinical ProtocolsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGlobal HealthGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial Perfusion ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyPractice Guidelines as TopicProfessional PracticeQuality of Health CareBest practicesNuclear cardiologyPETQuality of careRadiation doseSPECT

Identifiers

PMID25898845
PMCPMC4493324
OpenAlexW2116416278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.