Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27638745›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2018

Feasibility of FDG-PET in myocarditis: Comparison to CMR using integrated PET/MRI.

Felix Nensa, Julia Kloth, Ercan Tezgah, Thorsten D Poeppel, Philipp Heusch, Juliane Goebel, Kai Nassenstein, Thomas Schlosser

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.9field-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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 184 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Update of the Brazilian Guideline on Nuclear Cardiology - 2020.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Persistent Focal MyocardialDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. JHLT open · 2026
    Article
  6. Quantitative evaluation ofAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. The Emerging Specialty of Cardio-Rheumatology.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. IsCancers · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Felix NensaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. felix.nensa@uk-essen.de.
Julia KlothClinic for Cardiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Ercan TezgahClinic for Cardiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Thorsten D PoeppelClinic for Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Philipp HeuschDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Dusseldorf, University of Dusseldorf, 45147, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Juliane GoebelDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Kai NassensteinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Thomas SchlosserDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
University of Duisburg-Essen · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBesides cardiac sarcoidosis, FDG-PET is rarely used in the diagnosis of myocardial inflammation, while cardiac MRI (CMR) is the actual imaging reference for the workup of myocarditis. Using integrated PET/MRI in patients with suspected myocarditis, we prospectively compared FDG-PET to CMR and the feasibility of integrated FDG-PET/MRI in myocarditis.

methodsA total of 65 consecutive patients with suspected myocarditis were prospectively assessed using integrated cardiac FDG-PET/MRI. Studies comprised T2-weighted imaging, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), and simultaneous PET acquisition. Physiological glucose uptake in the myocardium was suppressed using dietary preparation.

resultsFDG-PET/MRI was successful in 55 of 65 enrolled patients: two patients were excluded due to claustrophobia and eight patients due to failed inhibition of myocardial glucose uptake. Compared with CMR (LGE and/or T2), sensitivity and specificity of PET was 74% and 97%. Overall spatial agreement between PET and CMR was κ = 0.73. Spatial agreement between PET and T2 (κ = 0.75) was higher than agreement between PET and LGE (κ = 0.64) as well as between LGE and T2 (κ = 0.56).

conclusionIn patients with suspected myocarditis, FDG-PET is in good agreement with CMR findings.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Positron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsAdultContrast MediaFeasibility StudiesFemaleGadoliniumHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMultimodal ImagingMyocarditisProspective StudiesContrast MediaFluorodeoxyglucose F18GadoliniumRadiopharmaceuticalscardiovascular magneticFluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)myocarditisPET imagingPET/MR imagingresonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID27638745
OpenAlexW2516274007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.