ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2017
Sources of variability in the measurement of perfusion defect size using commercially available software programs: Are there gender differences?
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2020: positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Review
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2017. Part 2 of 2: Myocardial perfusion imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We recently showed that Quantitative Perfusion SPECT (QPS), Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb) and 4-Dimension-Myocardial SPECT (4DM) yielded discordant results in the assessment of perfusion defect size (PDS) in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. In this report, we examined the sources of variability in the measurement of PDS using ECTb (Var
Indexed as
Identifiers
28050861What 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.