ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2016
Appropriate use criteria in clinical routine practice: implications in a nuclear cardiology lab.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of appropriateness in clinical practice: data from a single-centre nuclear cardiology laboratory.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2023Article
- Appropriateness of inpatient stress testing: Implications for development of clinical decision support mechanisms and future criteria.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Myocardial stress perfusion scintigraphy for outcome prediction in patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Appropriate use criteria in myocardial perfusion imaging in a tertiary care hospital in South India: An audit.World journal of nuclear medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efforts for a broad application of the appropriate use criteria to reduce inappropriate nuclear stress testing have frequently been unsuccessful and the reported rates of inappropriateness have varied widely between studies. We sought to analyze the criteria of clinical appropriateness of a cohort of consecutive patients referred to our nuclear cardiology laboratory to perform stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and to assess the relationships between test appropriateness and the evaluation of ischaemia. A cohort of 251 consecutive patients, admitted to our Institute from January to March 2015, who underwent stress/rest MPI on a dedicated cardiac camera equipped with cadmium-zinc-telluride detectors, was selected. The level of clinical appropriateness of each MPI test was categorized in each patient according to the AUC criteria. According to the accepted criteria, the majority of the MPI stress-tests could be classified as clinically appropriate (218 of 251, 87 % of the tests), while only 16 (6 %) and 17 (7 %) resulted of uncertain appropriateness or clearly inappropriate, respectively. Of the 251 appropriate tests, 22 (10 %), 65 (30 %), and 131 (60 %) showed the presence of a mild (SDS < 4), moderate (4 ≥ SDS < 7), and severe (SDS ≥ 7) ischemic burden, respectively, while none of the inappropriate test showed moderate-to-severe ischaemia (P < 0.001 for comparisons). The rate of inappropriate MPI tests is considerably low in a high-volume laboratory. Appropriate and inappropriate studies identify patients at high and low probability of significant ischemia, respectively, providing insights on the effects of the level of appropriateness on stress-test results.
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.