SynthesisJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2020
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of PET-derived myocardial blood flow parameters: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hemodynamic Evaluation of Coronary Artery Lesions after Kawasaki Disease: Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve during Cardiac Catheterization with Myocardial Flow Reserve duringJournal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Precision of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Measurement During CZT SPECT Perfusion Imaging Processing: Intra- and Interobserver Variability.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Development of a dynamic myocardial perfusion phantom model for tracer kinetic measurements.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Impact of attenuation correction for CZT-SPECT measurement of myocardial blood flow.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- 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
- KSNM60 in Cardiology: Regrowth After a Long Pause.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Review
- Short-term repeatability of myocardial blood flow usingJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Myocardial Flow Reserve Measurement During CZT-SPECT Perfusion Imaging for Coronary Artery Disease Screening: Correlation With Clinical Findings and Invasive Coronary Angiography-The CFR-OR Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- How accurate is the accuracy?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Stress myocardial perfusion gated-SPECT imaging in advanced chronic kidney disease.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- Debates over NICE Guideline Update: What Are the Roles of Nuclear Cardiology in the Initial Evaluation of Stable Chest Pain?Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) by positron emission tomography provides additive diagnostic value to visual analysis of perfusion defect, diagnostic accuracy of different MBF parameters remain unclear.
methodsClinical studies regarding the diagnostic accuracy of hyperemic MBF (hMBF), myocardial flow reserve (MFR) and/or relative flow reserve (RFR) were searched and systematically reviewed. On a per-vessel basis, pooled measures of the parameters' diagnostic performances were analyzed, regarding significant coronary stenosis defined by fractional flow reserve or diameter stenosis.
resultsTen studies (2,522 arteries from 1,099 patients) were finally included. Pooled sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 0.853 (0.821-0.881) for hMBF, 0.755 (0.713-0.794) for MFR, and 0.636 (0.539-0.726) for RFR. Pooled specificity (95% CI) was 0.844 (0.827-0.860) for hMBF, 0.804 (0.784-0.824) for MFR, and 0.897 (0.860-0.926) for RFR. Pooled area under the curve ± standard error was 0.900 ± 0.020 for hMBF, 0.830 ± 0.026 for MFR, and 0.873 ± 0.048 for RFR.
conclusionshMBF showed the best sensitivity while RFR showed the best specificity in the diagnosis of significant coronary stenosis. MFR was less sensitive than hMBF and less specific than hMBF and RFR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30390243What 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.