ReviewThe British journal of radiology2015
Exploring the nature of atheroma and cardiovascular inflammation in vivo using positron emission tomography (PET).
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative thoracic aorta calcification assessment byEuropean radiology · 2021Article
- Critical review of PET imaging for detection and characterization of the atherosclerotic plaques with emphasis on limitations of FDG-PET compared to NaF-PET in this setting.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Review
- Network Medicine: A Clinical Approach for Precision Medicine and Personalized Therapy in Coronary Heart Disease.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2020Review
- Noninvasive aortic imaging.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2018Review
- Do we need FDG-PET/CT to assess atherosclerosis?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Article
- Imaging Subclinical Atherosclerosis: Where Do We Stand?Current cardiology reviews · 2017Review
- (18)F-FDG PET-CT: a powerful tool for the diagnosis and treatment of relapsing polychondritis.The British journal of radiology · 2016Article
- Erythropoietin and a nonerythropoietic peptide analog promote aortic endothelial cell repair under hypoxic conditions: role of nitric oxide.Hypoxia (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) has become widely established in oncology. Subsequently, a whole new “toolbox” of tracers have become available to look at different aspects of cancer cell function and dysfunction, including cell protein production, DNA synthesis, hypoxia and angiogenesis. In the past 5 years, these tools have been used increasingly to look at the other great killer of the developed world: cardiovascular disease. For example, inflammation of the unstable plaque can be imaged with 18-fludeoxyglucose (18F-FDG), and this uptake can be quantified to show the effect that statins have in reducing inflammation and explains how these drugs can reduce the risk of stroke. 18F-FDG has also become established in diagnosing and monitoring large-vessel vasculitis and has now entered routine practice. Other agents such as gallium-68 (68Ga) octreotide have been shown to identify vascular inflammation possibly more specifically than 18FFDG.Hypoxia within the plaque can be imaged with 18F-fluoromisonidazole and resulting angiogenesis with 18F-RGD peptides. Active calcification such as that found in unstable atheromatous plaques can be imaged with 18F-NaF. PET imaging enables us to understand the mechanisms by which cardiovascular disease, including atheroma, leads tomorbidity and death and thus increases the chance of finding new and effective treatments.
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.