Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29327252›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2019

Compared vulnerabilities to small cardiac motions between different cameras used for myocardial perfusion imaging.

Julien Salvadori, Yolande Petegnief, Remi Sabbah, Olivier Morel, Hatem Boulahdour, Gilles Karcher, Pierre-Yves Marie, Laetitia Imbert

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Rotating and stationary SPECT system patient motion myocardial perfusion artifacts.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Julien SalvadoriInstitut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, 54000, Nancy, France.
Yolande PetegniefCHU-Besançon, Université de Franche-Comté, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, 25000, Besançon, France.
Remi SabbahCHU-Besançon, Université de Franche-Comté, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, 25000, Besançon, France.
Olivier MorelCHU-Besançon, Université de Franche-Comté, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, 25000, Besançon, France.
Hatem BoulahdourCHU-Besançon, Université de Franche-Comté, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, 25000, Besançon, France.
Gilles KarcherCHRU-Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Plateforme Nancyclotep, 54000, Nancy, France.
Pierre-Yves MarieCHRU-Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Plateforme Nancyclotep, 54000, Nancy, France.
Laetitia ImbertInstitut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, 54000, Nancy, France. l.imbert@chru-nancy.fr.
Université de franche-comté · FRInserm · FRInstitut de Cancérologie de Lorraine · FRUniversité de Lorraine · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This phantom-based study was aimed to determine whether cardiac CZT-cameras, which provide an enhanced spatial resolution and image contrast compared to Anger cameras, are similarly affected by small cardiac motions. Translations of a left ventricular (LV) insert at half-SPECT acquisitions through six possible orthogonal directions and with 5- or 10-mm amplitude were simulated on the Discovery NM-530c and DSPECT CZT-cameras and on an Anger Symbia T2 camera equipped with an astigmatic (IQ.SPECT) or conventional parallel-hole collimator (Conv.SPECT). SPECT images were initially reconstructed as currently recommended for clinical routine. The heterogeneity in recorded activity from the 17 LV segments gradually increased between baseline and motions simulated at 5- and 10-mm amplitudes with all cameras, although being higher for Anger- than CZT-cameras at each step and resulting in a higher mean number of artifactual abnormal segments (at 10-mm amplitude, Conv.SPECT: 3.7; IQ.SPECT: 1.8, Discovery: 0.7, DSPECT: 0). However, this vulnerability to motion was markedly (1) decreased for Conv.SPECT reconstructed without the recommended Resolution Recovery algorithm and (2) increased for DSPECT reconstructed without the recommended cardiac model. CZT-cameras and especially the DSPECT appear less vulnerable to small cardiac motions than Anger-cameras although these differences are strongly dependent on reconstruction parameters.

Indexed as

MotionArtifactsHeartHumansModels, CardiovascularMyocardial Perfusion ImagingPhantoms, ImagingReproducibility of ResultsTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photonanger-camerasartifactsCZT-camerasmyocardial perfusion imagingpatient motions

Identifiers

PMID29327252
OpenAlexW2784319275

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.