ArticleEJNMMI physics2015
Evaluation of inter-departmental variability of ejection fraction and cardiac volumes in myocardial perfusion scintigraphy using simulated data.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Left ventricular ejection fraction by multigated acquisition scan using planar sodium iodide and cadmium-zinc-telluride cameras: a comparison with two-dimensional echocardiography.Asia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology · 2023Article
- A multicentre simulation study of planar whole-body bone scintigraphy in Sweden.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Dose-optimization in nuclear cardiac imaging, time for the next step?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- Incorporation of the Living Heart Model into the 4D XCAT Phantom for Cardiac Imaging Research.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2019Article
- Factors That Impact Evaluation of Left Ventricular Systolic Parameters in Myocardial Perfusion Gated SPECT with 16 Frame and 8 Frame Acquisition Models.Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) is a clinically useful noninvasive imaging modality for diagnosing patients with suspected coronary artery disease. By utilizing gated MPS, the end diastolic volume (EDV) and end systolic volume (ESV) can be measured and the ejection fraction (EF) calculated, which gives incremental prognostic value compared with assessment of perfusion only. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-departmental variability of EF, ESV, and EDV during gated MPS in Sweden.
methodsSeventeen departments were included in the study. The SIMIND Monte Carlo (MC) program together with the XCAT phantom was used to simulate three patient cases with different EDV, ESV, and EF. Individual simulations were performed for each department, corresponding to their specific method of performing MPS. Images were then sent to each department and were evaluated according to clinical routine. EDV, ESV, and EF were reported back.
resultsThere was a large underestimation of EDV and ESV for all three cases. Mean underestimation for EDV varied between 26% and 52% and for ESV between 15% and 60%. EF was more accurately measured, but mean bias still varied between an underestimation of 24% to an overestimation of 14%. In general, the intra-departmental variability for EDV, ESV, and EF was small, whereas inter-departmental variability was larger.
conclusionsLeft ventricular volumes were generally underestimated, whereas EF was more accurately estimated. There was, however, large inter-departmental variability.
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.