ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2022
Insights into Nuclear Cardiology in the United States from the first 3 years of the ImageGuide Registry.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2022. 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.
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2022: single photon emission computed tomography.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData registries facilitate knowledge acquisition and quality improvement. ImageGuide is a registry developed by the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology collecting data since 2015, providing insight into current nuclear cardiology practice. METHODS AND
resultsHIPAA de-identified data on > 100 practice- and patient-related variables from 19 US practices were obtained from ImageGuide. Continuous variables are reported as the mean ± standard deviation; discrete variables are reported as N (%). Practices were from 12 states; 9520 studies were submitted. The average patient was a 66-year-old man. Chest pain was the most common indication; 96% of studies were appropriate. Rest/stress 1-day studies were most common; stress/rest 1- and 2-day studies comprised < 5%. Tc-99 m was the most common radiopharmaceutical. Tl-201 was used in 14% of rest studies. Most studies were not corrected for attenuation. 89% were of good or better quality. 62% of studies were normal.
conclusionsPractice diversity is limited, but patient demographics are reflective of reported current practice. Most studies are appropriate and may obviate the need for invasive testing. Radiation dosimetry could be decreased with wider adoption of stress/rest studies and avoidance of Tl-201. ImageGuide will be an important tool to guide non-invasive cardiac imaging in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32342300What 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.