SynthesisDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2021
Performance of bone tracer for diagnosis and differentiation of transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A narrative review: key evidence from meta-analyses in nuclear medicine.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiac Amyloidosis: A Narrative Review of Diagnostic Advances and Emerging Therapies.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Bone Tracers for Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy: Are [Molecular imagingArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBone tracers have been validated for many years in detecting transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (TTR-CA). However, several new studies suggest conflicting results. Our study aimed to systematically evaluate the accuracy of bone radiotracers for diagnosis and differentiation of TTR-CA via a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsWe retrieved articles assessing the performance of bone tracer in diagnosing and differentiating TTR-CA from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and DOAJ databases, dating up to 10 July 2020. The meta-analysis was conducted through Stata 16 software, and the risk of bias for the included studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Moreover, we made a comprehensive review.
resultsFourteen articles were included in the systematic review, and 9 in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 0.97 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.85-0.99) with heterogeneity (I2=73.5, 95% CI 55.6-91.2), and the specificity was 0.92 (95% CI 0.82-0.96) with heterogeneity (I2=42.0, 95% CI 0.0-86.9). The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 11.49 (95% CI 5.07-26.0) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.01-0.18), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was 341 (95% CI 53-2194), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97).
conclusionThe findings evidence that the bone radiotracer is a valuable noninvasive approach that provides high accuracy for diagnosing TTR-CA and plays a modest role in differentiating TTR-CA from immunoglobulin amyloid light-chain cardiac amyloidosis. 99mTc-HMDP may be more accurate than 99mTc-PYP, 99mTc-DPD, and 18F-NaF in the TTR-CA detecting process, and 18F-NaF is a promising bone tracer to diagnose and differentiate TTR-CA.
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.