Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28205113›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2017

Cardiac PET/CT with Rb-82: optimization of image acquisition and reconstruction parameters.

P Chilra, S Gnesin, G Allenbach, M Monteiro, J O Prior, L Vieira, J A Pires Jorge

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Attenuation correction of cardiacEJNMMI physics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Time-of-flight in cardiac PET/TC: What do we know and what we should know?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

P ChilraHaute École de Santé Vaud - Filière TRM, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.
S GnesinInstitute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
G AllenbachNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
M MonteiroNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J O PriorNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
L VieiraÁrea Científica de Medicina Nuclear, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
J A Pires JorgeHaute École de Santé Vaud - Filière TRM, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland. jose.jorge@hesav.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur aim was to characterize the influence of time-of-flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) recovery corrections, as well as ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction parameters, in

resultsWhole left ventricle (LV) MBF at rest and stress were 0.97 ± 0.30 and 2.30 ± 1.00 mL/min/g, respectively, and MFR was 2.40 ± 1.13. Concordance was excellent and all reconstruction parameters had no significant impact on MBF, except for the exclusion of TOF which led to significantly decreased concordance in rest and stress MBF in patients with or without perfusion defects on a coronary artery basis and in MFR in patients with perfusion defects.

conclusionsChanges in reconstruction parameters in perfusion

Indexed as

Cardiac PET/CT reconstructionMyocardial blood flowMyocardial flow reserveRb-82

Identifiers

PMID28205113
PMCPMC5311016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.