ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2020
Assessment of four different cardiac softwares for evaluation of LVEF with CZT-SPECT vs CMR in 48 patients with recent STEMI.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Children of a lesser god: From radiocardiogram to CZT GSPECT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare, vs CMR, four softwares: quantitative gated SPECT (QGS), myometrix (MX), corridor 4DM (4DM), and Emory toolbox (ECTb) to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic (ESV), and end-diastolic volumes (EDVs) by gated MPI CZT-SPECT.
methods48 patients underwent MPI CZT-SPECT and CMR 6 weeks after STEMI, LV parameters were measured with four softwares at MPI CZT-SPECT vs CMR. We evaluated (i) concordance and correlation between MPI CZT-SPECT and CMR, (ii) concordance MPI CZT-SPECT/CMR for the categorical evaluation of the left ventricular dysfunction, and (iii) impacts of perfusion defects > 3 segments on concordance.
resultsLVEF: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.81 [+ 2.2% (± 18%)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.83 [+ 1% (± 17.5%)], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.73 [+ 3.9% (± 21%)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.69 [+ 6.6% (± 21.1%)]. ESV: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.90 [- 8 mL (± 40 mL)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.90 [- 9 mL (± 36 mL)], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.89 [+ 4 mL (± 45 mL)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.87 [- 3 mL (± 45 mL)]. EDV: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.70 [- 16 mL (± 67 mL)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.68 [- 21 mL (± 63 mL], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.72 [+ 9 mL (± 73 mL)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.69 [+ 10 mL (± 70 mL)].
conclusionQGS and MX were the two best-performing softwares to evaluate LVEF after recent STEMI.
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.