ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2021
Evaluation of quantitative CMR perfusion imaging by comparison with simultaneous
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathies: An In-Depth Review of Techniques and Clinical Applications.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic performance of quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prior coronary artery disease.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2025Article
- SimultaneousFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A simplified method to correct saturation of arterial input function for cardiac magnetic resonance first-pass perfusion imaging: validation with simultaneously acquired PET.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023Article
- Diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy using non-ECG-gatedJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- CMR quantitative measurements of myocardial blood flow: Not ready for routine clinical application.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2020Article
- Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed the quantitative accuracy of cardiac perfusion measurements using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simultaneous
methods15 patients underwent simultaneous DCE MRI and
resultsThree subjects were excluded due to technical problems. Global mean (± SD) MBF values at rest and stress were 0.97 ± 0.27 and 3.19 ± 0.70 mL/g/min for MRI and 1.02 ± 0.28 and 3.13 ± 1.16 mL/g/min for PET (P = 0.66 and P = 0.81). The correlations between global and regional MRI- and PET-based MBF values were strong (r = 0.86 and r = 0.75). The biases were negligible for both global and regional MBF comparisons (0.01 and 0.00 mL/min/g for both), but the limits of agreement were wide for both global and regional MBF, with larger variability for high MBF-values.
conclusionThe correlation between simultaneous MBF measurements with DCE MRI and
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.