ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2018
15-O-water myocardial flow reserve PET and CT angiography by full hybrid PET/CT as a potential alternative to invasive angiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2018. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular imaging 2018 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
- Experience Applying the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) Indicated Five Questions Should Be Addressed in the Planning Phase from a Statistical Point of View.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Combined myocardial flow reserve (MFR) by PET and CT coronary angiography (CTA) is a promising tool for assessment of coronary artery disease. Prior analyses of MFR/CTA has been performed as side-by-side interpretation, not as volume rendered, full hybrid analysis, with fused MFR/CTA. We aimed to: (i) establish a method for full hybrid analysis of MFR/CTA, (ii) validate the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of MFR values, and (iii) determine the diagnostic value of side-by-side versus full hybrid MFR/CTA with 15-O-water PET. Forty-four outpatients scheduled for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were enrolled prospectively. All underwent rest/stress 15-O-water PET/CTA with ICA as reference. Within two observers of different experience, the Pearson r at global and territorial level exceeded 0.953 for rest, stress, and MFR values, as determined by Carimas software. Within and between observers, the mean differences between rest, stress, and MFR values were close to zero and the confidence intervals for 95% limits of agreement were narrow. The diagnostic performance of full hybrid PET/CTA did not outperform the side-by-side approach, but performed better than MFR without CTA at vessel level: specificity 93% (95% confidence limits: 89-97%) versus 76% (64-88%), p = 0.0004; positive predictive value 71% (55-86%) versus 51% (37-65%), p = 0.0001; accuracy 90% (84-95%) versus 77% (69-84%), p = 0.0009. MFR showed high reproducibility within and between observers of different experience. The full hybrid model was not superior to side-by-side interpretation of MFR/CTA, but proved better than MFR alone at vessel level with regard to specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.