ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2020
Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate Effects of Eplerenone on Myocardial Perfusion and Function Among Persons With Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Results From the MIRACLE HIV Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Trial
- Quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: same same but different.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Emerging Applications of Positron Emission Tomography in Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
- Clinical implementation of a fully automated quantitative perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging workflow with a simplified dual-bolus contrast administration scheme.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Developing and evaluating a chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy in swine model by rest and stress CMR.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- A Multimodality Myocardial Perfusion Phantom: Initial Quantitative Imaging Results.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021Review
- Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: JACC Review Topic of the Week.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [
methodsFifty-nine patients with stable CAD underwent CMR and [
resultsCMR measurements of regional stress MBF and MFR showed only moderate correlation to those obtained using PET (r = 0.39; P < 0.001 for stress MBF and r = 0.36; P < 0.001 for MFR). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant bias of 0.2 ± 1.0 mL/min/g for stress MBF and - 0.5 ± 1.2 for MFR. CMR-derived stress MBF and MFR demonstrated area under the curves of respectively 0.72 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.83) and had optimal cutoff values of 2.35 mL/min/g and 2.25 for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion, defined as [
conclusionCMR measurements of stress MBF and MFR showed modest agreement to those obtained with [
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.