ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022
The feasibility of
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phase analysis by Methods: A total of 146 patients with infarction underwent 2 consecutive days of GSPECT and GPET examinations. Quantitative gated SPECT-derived LV phase analysis was applied to GPET and GSPECT data to assess the presence of LV dyssynchrony via histogram bandwidth (BW) and phase standard deviation (SD). The correlation and agreement of BW and SD between GSPECT and GPET were examined. Factors (i.e., total perfusion defect, scar and mismatch) related to the discrepancies of LV dyssynchrony (i.e., BW and SD) in GPET and GSPECT were assessed by univariate and multivariate regression analysis. Results: A moderate correlation between GPET and GSPECT was found in the measurements of BW (r=0.554) and SD (r=0.537). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that GPET overestimated both BW and SD (20.5° and 9.5°, respectively). In addition, the BW and SD measured by GPET were still overestimated after subgroup analysis. Between GPET and GSPECT, multivariate regression analysis revealed that total perfusion defects were related to the difference in BW measurement (P<0.001), and mismatch was associated with the difference in SD measurement (P<0.01). Conclusions: In patients with infarction, GPET moderately correlated with GSPECT in assessing LV dyssynchrony. GPET overestimated both BW and SD, so these analyses should not be interchangeable in individual patients.
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.