ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2021
Diagnostic accuracy of regadenoson stress echocardiography: concordance with gated-spect myocardial perfusion imaging.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of mass defect percentage in the evaluation of acute coronary syndrome.Nuclear medicine communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regadenoson Stress Echocardiography (RSE) can detect myocardial ischemia, and its diagnostic accuracy should be evaluated. We sought to investigate the agreement between RSE and gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and appraise its diagnostic accuracy. Consecutive patients (n = 202) referred for non-invasive evaluation of myocardial ischemia, with (38.6%) or without a previous coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis, were enrolled. Both tests were performed simultaneously. Invasive coronary angiography (CA) is considered the gold standard. The mean age was 70.9 (9.8) years, and 59.9% were male. The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (arterial hypertension [81.7%], diabetes mellitus [37.6%], hypercholesterolemia [71.8%], and smoking [18.8%]) was high. Forty-four patients (21.8%) had a non-interpretable electrocardiogram, 15 (34.1%) of them were a result of ventricular paced-rhythm, while 29 (65.9%) were a result of advanced left ventricular branch block. The overall agreement between both diagnostic techniques was good: Gwet's AC1 0.66 (CI95% 0.55 to 0.76), and it was higher in patients without a previous CAD diagnosis: 0.76 (CI95% 0.65 to 0.87). In the biased sample (those who underwent CA), RSE and nuclear study sensitivity was 0.50 and 0.78 and specificity was 0.75 and 0.75, respectively. We noted a dramatic reduction in sensitivity for RSE after debiasing (debiased sensitivity of 0.16), and the negative predictive value was similar to the biased and debiased samples. RSE is in strong agreement with gated-SPECT MPI. However, its low sensitivity and negative predictive value preclude its use as a bedside test to detect myocardial ischemia.
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.