ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2022
Influence of patient motion on quantitative accuracy in cardiac
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data-Driven Motion Correction Algorithm: Validation in [Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Detection and correction of patient motion in dynamicJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2022: positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance.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
5 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient motion is a common problem during cardiac PET. The purpose of the present study was to investigate to what extent motions influence the quantitative accuracy of cardiac
methodFrequency and magnitude of motion was assessed visually using data from 50 clinical
resultsPatient motion was detected in 68% of clinical cases by visual inspection. All observed motions were small with amplitudes less than half the LV wall thickness. A clear pattern of motion influence was seen in the simulations with a decrease of myocardial blood flow (MBF) in the region of myocardium to where the motion was directed. The perfusable tissue fraction (PTF) trended in the opposite direction. Global absolute average deviation of MBF was 3.1% ± 1.8% and 7.3% ± 6.3% for motions with maximum amplitudes of 5 and 20 mm, respectively. Automated motion detection showed a sensitivity of 90% for simulated motions ≥ 10 mm but struggled with the smaller (≤ 5 mm) simulated (sensitivity 45%) and clinical motions (accuracy 48%).
conclusionPatient motion can impair the quantitative accuracy of MBF. However, at typically occurring levels of patient motion, effects are similar to or only slightly larger than inter-observer variability, and downstream clinical effects are likely negligible.
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.