ReviewJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2020
Quantitative Clinical Nuclear Cardiology, Part 1: Established Applications.
Review 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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of PET quantitative methods for myocardial viability assessment in CAD patients and its prognostic value.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Enhanced accuracy of cardiacEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Prediction of 2-year major adverse cardiac events from myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and clinical risk factors.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Added value gated PET with phase analysis for the detection of scar burden and prognostication in cardiac sarcoidosis?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence to Improve Risk Prediction with Nuclear Cardiac Studies.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- Shining Damaged Hearts: Immunotherapy-Related Cardiotoxicity in the Spotlight of Nuclear Cardiology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Article
- Obstructive sleep apnea, myocardial perfusion and myocardial blood flow: A study of older male twins.PloS one · 2022Article
- Quantitative clinical nuclear cardiology, part 2: Evolving/emerging applications.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Review
- Impact of Valve Plane Alignment on the Repeatability of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in ECG-gatedMyocard ial SPECT Using Corridor 4DM.Annals of nuclear cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has attained widespread clinical acceptance as a standard of care for patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). A significant contribution to this success has been the use of computer techniques to provide objective quantitative assessment in the standardization of the interpretation of these studies. Software platforms have been developed as a pipeline to provide the quantitative algorithms researched, developed and validated to be clinically useful so diagnosticians everywhere can benefit from these tools. The goal of this CME article (PART 1) is to describe the many quantitative tools that are clinically established and more importantly how clinicians should use them routinely in the interpretation, clinical management and therapy guidance of patients with CAD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31654215What 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.