ReviewJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2017
Cardiovascular PET/MR: We need evidence, not hype.
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 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.
- Hybrid PET/MRI in Inflammatory Cardiac Diseases: A Systematic Review and Single-Center Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2017. Part 1 of 2: Positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Review
- The role of myocardial viability in contemporary cardiac practice.Heart failure reviews · 2017Review
- Cardiovascular PET/MR: "Not the end but the beginning".Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent introduction of hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) scanners has created excitement regarding potential applications in cardiovascular medicine. This has led to a number of optimistic assessments of its potential value in the nuclear cardiology literature, although most published data are still at the feasibility or pre-clinical level. Such excitement is understandable and provides "fuel" for generation of the necessary clinical validation studies, which will be required. Given the current scrutiny from payers and government agencies to reduce the costs of cardiac imaging, the responsibility for showing additive benefit lies on the shoulders of those advocating for new, more expensive technologies. In the case of PET/MR, this will be a major challenge, given the high costs of the hybrid procedure and the need for potentially harmful ionizing radiation compared to a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-only approach. The aim of this editorial is to provide a critical appraisal of the current evidence base for clinical use of PET/MR in cardiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27900641What 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.