ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2020
SPECT Versus PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients with Equivocal CT.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance of CMR, SPECT, and PET Imaging for the Identification of Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Preclinical evaluation of [EJNMMI research · 2024Article
- Feasibility of positron range correction in 82-Rubidium cardiac PET/CT.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Transforming ATTR cardiac amyloidosis into a chronic disease: The enormous potential of quantitative SPECT to improve diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of disease progression.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Increasing Use of Cardiac PET/CT for Inflammatory and Infiltrative Heart Diseases in Korea.Chonnam medical journal · 2021Article
- Research Progress of Imaging Methods for Detection of Microvascular Angina Pectoris in Diabetic Patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe most pertinent clinical question in post-coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) patients is the assessment of the physiological significance of an anatomically identified stenosis. The clinical application of radionuclide MPI using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) versus positron emission tomography (PET) in the evaluation and management of patients with an inconclusive CCTA is reviewed using a case-based approach. RECENT
findingsRecent evidence suggests that CCTA is the most sensitive non-invasive test to exclude angiographic CAD and may be an effective first-line test especially among symptomatic low-intermediate risk patients. However, in the presence of angiographic atherosclerosis, its specificity and positive predictive value for identifying flow-limiting stenosis are modest. Radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging offers accurate quantitative assessment of myocardial ischemia, which helps with risk stratification and patient management especially the potential need for revascularization. Routine accurate quantifications of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve are major advantages of PET MPI, which are especially useful when used in patients at intermediate-high clinical risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32451746What 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.