ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2022
The assessment of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony from gated
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to partly conflicting studies, further research is warranted with the QGS software package, with regard to the performance of gated FDG PET phase analysis as compared to gated MPS as well as the establishment of possible cut-off values for FDG PET to define dyssynchrony.
methodsGated MPS and gated FDG PET datasets of 93 patients were analyzed with the QGS software. BW, Phase SD, and Entropy were calculated and compared between the methods. The performance of gated PET to identify dyssynchrony was measured against SPECT as reference standard. ROC analysis was performed to identify the best discriminator of dyssynchrony and to define cut-off values.
resultsBW and Phase SD differed significantly between the SPECT and PET. There was no significant difference in Entropy with a high linear correlation between methods. There was only moderate agreement between SPECT and PET to identify dyssynchrony. Entropy was the best single PET parameter to predict dyssynchrony with a cut-off point at 62%.
conclusionGated MPS and gated FDG PET can assess LVMD. The methods cannot be used interchangeably. Establishing reference ranges and cut-off values is difficult due to the lack of an external gold standard. Further prospective research is necessary.
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.