ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
A Novel Quantitative Parameter for Static Myocardial Computed Tomography: Myocardial Perfusion Ratio to the Aorta.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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.
- What More Can Be Delivered to Future Patients with Coronary Syndromes?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the feasibility of myocardial perfusion ratio to the aorta (MPR) in static computed tomography perfusion (CTP) for detecting myocardial perfusion abnormalities assessed by single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Twenty-five patients with suspected coronary artery disease who underwent dynamic CTP and SPECT were retrospectively evaluated. CTP images scanned at a sub-optimal phase for detecting myocardial perfusion abnormalities were selected from dynamic CTP images and used as static CTP images in the present study. The diagnostic accuracy of MPR derived from static CTP was compared to those of visual assessment and conventional quantitative parameters such as myocardial CT attenuation (HU) and transmural perfusion ratio (TPR). The area under the curve of MPR (0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76−0.90) was significantly higher than those of myocardial CT attenuation (0.73; 95% CI, 0.65−0.79) and TPR (0.76; 95% CI, 0.67−0.83) (p < 0.05). Sensitivity and specificity were 67% (95% CI, 54−77%) and 90% (95% CI, 86−92%) for visual assessment, 51% (95% CI, 39−63%) and 86% (95% CI, 82−89%) for myocardial CT attenuation, 63% (95% CI, 51−74%) and 84% (95% CI, 80−88%) for TPR, and 78% (95% CI, 66−86%) and 84% (95% CI, 80−88%) for MPR, respectively. MPR showed higher diagnostic accuracy for detecting myocardial perfusion abnormality compared with myocardial CT attenuation and TPR.
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.