ReviewJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2017
Artifacts in Quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion SPECT, using Cedars-Sinai QPS Software.
Review in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2017. 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.
- Analysis and Characterization of Factors Affecting the Consistency of Tl-201 Myocardial Perfusion Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography and Coronary Angiography Results in Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Myocardial perfusion imaging SPECT left ventricle segmentation with graphs.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- The influence of arm positions on mechanical dyssynchrony measured by gated myocardial perfusion imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Inter-reader variability of SPECT MPI readings in low- and middle-income countries: Results from the IAEA-MPI Audit Project (I-MAP).Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging quality assurance in current and future practice.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion Single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) images is increasingly applied in modern nuclear cardiology practice, assisting in the interpretation of myocardial perfusion images (MPI). There are different extensively validated state-of-the-art software packages, including QPS (cedars-Sinai), Corridor 4DM (University of Michigan) and Emory cardiac toolbox (Emory university), providing highly accurate and reproducible data. However, these software packages may suffer from potential artifacts related to patient or technical factors. By recognizing the source of such artifacts, the interpreting physician can avoid misinterpretation of MPI study. In this review, we discuss some of technical pitfalls that may occur in Quantitative Perfusion SPECT software (QPS, cedars-Sinai Medical center).
Indexed as
Identifiers
27834038What 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.