ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2022
Methods of calculating
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Energy spectrum-based correction of washout rates in dual-isotopeAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term survival and durable recovery of heart failure in patients with triglyceride deposit cardiomyovasculopathy treated with tricaprin.Nature cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- The 13th World Federation of Nuclear Medicine and Biology congress (WFNMB 2022): summarize the past half century and discuss the next half century of WFNMB.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- Dilated cardiomyopathy caused by mutation of theFrontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Carnitine Administration andAnnals of nuclear cardiology · 2024Article
- Practice recommendation for measuring washout rates inAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- Are nuclear medicine images quantified in 2D and 3D equally functional?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Practice Recommendation for Measuring Washout Rates inAnnals 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to optimize various methods of calculating washout rates (WRs) of
methodsWe calculated WRs of
resultsAll six methods were useful for diagnosis and did not significantly differ. The four SPECT methods showed excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUC 1.0), whereas the planar methods with and without background correction could be acceptable (AUC 0.857 and 0.964, respectively). The WRs were relatively lower for patients with CAD and remarkable metabolic defects than for patients with TGCV but without defects.
conclusionsFor the diagnosis of TGCV, the WR cutoff of 10% of
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.