ReviewThe British journal of radiology2020
Aortic valve stenosis-multimodality assessment with PET/CT and PET/MRI.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discordant High-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Autograft dilation after Ross procedure in children and young adults is mitigated by autograft reinforcement: A retrospective MRI study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Aortic Valve Calcium: A Narrative Review of its Role in the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis and as a Predictor of Post-transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Outcomes.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Bibliometric analysis of treatment modalities in calcific aortic valve stenosis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Myocardial Blood Flow Reserve, Microvascular Coronary Health, and Myocardial Remodeling in Patients With Aortic Stenosis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular positron emission tomography: established and emerging role in cardiovascular diseases.Heart failure reviews · 2023Review
- What can we do to improve the diagnosis and treatment of aortic stenosis?The British journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Advanced cardiovascular multimodal imaging and aortic stenosis.Heart failure reviews · 2022Review
- Aortic valve imaging usingEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Models and Techniques to Study Aortic Valve CalcificationFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Imaging patients with stable chest pain special feature: introductory editorial.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Positron emission tomography/MRI for cardiac diseases assessment.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Aortic valve disease is the most common form of heart valve disease in developed countries and a growing healthcare burden with an ageing population. Transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography remains central to the diagnosis and surveillance of patients with aortic stenosis, providing gold standard assessments of valve haemodynamics and myocardial performance. However, other multimodality imaging techniques are being explored for the assessment of aortic stenosis, including combined PET/CT and PET/MR. Both approaches provide unique information with respect to disease activity in the valve alongside more conventional anatomic assessments of the valve and myocardium in this condition. This review investigates the emerging use of PET/CT and PET/MR to assess patients with aortic stenosis, examining how the complementary data provided by each modality may be used for research applications and potentially in future clinical practice.
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.