ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2016
Myocardial blood flow quantification by Rb-82 cardiac PET/CT: A detailed reproducibility study between two semi-automatic analysis programs.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-Software Reproducibility of Quantitative Values of Myocardial Blood Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve Acquired by [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Noise-aware dynamic image denoising and positron range correction for Rubidium-82 cardiac PET imaging via self-supervision.Medical image analysis · 2025Article
- Machine learning: a new era for cardiovascular pregnancy physiology and cardio-obstetrics research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024Review
- An update on the use of image-derived input functions for human PET studies: new hopes or old illusions?EJNMMI research · 2023Review
- Interrelation between cardiac and brain small-vessel disease: a pilot quantitative PET and MRI study.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2023Article
- Insights into Insulin Resistance and Calcification in the Myocardium in Type 2 Diabetes: A Coronary Artery Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Assessing the Accuracy of Popular Commercial Technologies That Measure Resting Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2021Article
- Relative disagreement among different software packages in PET-flow quantitation: An appeal for consistency.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic performances of Rubidium-PET and SPECT with CZT camera for the detection of myocardial ischemia in a population of women and overweight individuals.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Initial Ablation Ratio Predicts Volume Reduction and Retreatment After 5 Years From Radiofrequency Ablation of Benign Thyroid Nodules.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Article
- Lost in quantification…: The influence of different software packages on flow quantification measures.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- Protection of coronary circulation: Evaluation by PET perfusion imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
- Relationship between cardiac microvascular dysfunction measured with 82Rubidium-PET and albuminuria in patients with diabetes mellitus.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2018Article
- Cardiac PET/CT with Rb-82: optimization of image acquisition and reconstruction parameters.EJNMMI physics · 2017Article
- Myocardial blood flow quantification by Rb-82 cardiac PET/CT: Methodological issues on reproducibility study.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- Review of Cardiovascular Imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2016. Part 1 of 2: Positron Emission Tomography, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Review
- (82)Rb PET imaging of myocardial blood flow-have we achieved the 4 "R"s to support routine use?EJNMMI research · 2016Article
- Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Review
- Methods for evaluating the agreement between diagnostic tests.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral analysis software packages for myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification from cardiac PET studies exist, but they have not been compared using concordance analysis, which can characterize precision and bias separately. Reproducible measurements are needed for quantification to fully develop its clinical potential.
methodsFifty-one patients underwent dynamic Rb-82 PET at rest and during adenosine stress. Data were processed with PMOD and FlowQuant (Lortie model). MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) polar maps were quantified and analyzed using a 17-segment model. Comparisons used Pearson's correlation ρ (measuring precision), Bland and Altman limit-of-agreement and Lin's concordance correlation ρc = ρ·C b (C b measuring systematic bias).
resultsLin's concordance and Pearson's correlation values were very similar, suggesting no systematic bias between software packages with an excellent precision ρ for MBF (ρ = 0.97, ρc = 0.96, C b = 0.99) and good precision for MFR (ρ = 0.83, ρc = 0.76, C b = 0.92). On a per-segment basis, no mean bias was observed on Bland-Altman plots, although PMOD provided slightly higher values than FlowQuant at higher MBF and MFR values (P < .0001).
conclusionsConcordance between software packages was excellent for MBF and MFR, despite higher values by PMOD at higher MBF values. Both software packages can be used interchangeably for quantification in daily practice of Rb-82 cardiac PET.
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.