ArticleCureus2021
Diagnostic Value of Single-Photon Emission Tomography Stress Test in Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical determinants of agreement and discordance between stress SPECT and invasive coronary angiography.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). ICA allows for clear visualization of the coronary arterial blood flow. Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is currently in widespread use to non-invasively evaluate patients known or suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD). This study aimed to examine the association between (SPECT) stress test and elective ICA in terms of diagnostic value in patients suspected of coronary artery disease at the King Faisal Cardiac Center (KFCC), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Methods This study is a retrospective diagnostic validation study using a consecutive sampling technique to select the study sample at KFCC. The study included all patients who presented with chest pain that were investigated with either exercise or pharmacologic myocardial perfusion SPECT study followed by elective ICA within six months from January 2015 to January 2020. Results A total of 207 patients met the inclusion criteria, where 43% (n = 90) of patients were females and 57% (n = 117) were males; 68% (n = 141) of the patients had both test results concordant (both SPECT and ICA results were in agreement). In 32% of the patients (n = 66), there was a discordant result (discrepant result between SPECT and ICA). SPECT had a sensitivity of 92.4% and a specificity of 26.3%. SPECT had a negative predictive value of 0.68 and a positive predictive value of 0.66 compared to ICA. There was a low degree of reliability between SPECT and ICA. Conclusion Reliability between the SPECT and ICA in exclusion of significant CAD is high. The rate of false-positive tests was high while the accuracy of SPECT in detecting CAD in patients with diabetes and hypertension was high. The overall reliability of SPECT to ICA in the Saudi population was low.
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.