ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2023
First validation of stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy using a novel reconstruction process.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2023. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA new image reconstruction process termed the MUS method (masking process on unsmoothed images) was developed to eliminate artifacts, especially those in the inferior wall. We compared diagnostic performance between the MUS and conventional method in stress myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS).
methodsEnrolled were 126 patients who underwent stress-rest MPS with
resultsSensitivity was comparable between the MUS method and the conventional method (ordered subset expectation maximization; OSEM) (51% vs 54%, respectively; (p = 0.366), specificity was significantly higher using the MUS method (87% vs 77%, respectively; p < 0.05), and diagnostic performance was higher using the MUS method (area under curve [AUC], conventional 0.61 vs. MUS 0.69, p = 0.138). In evaluation of 87 patients after excluding 39 who received additional prone imaging, sensitivity using the MUS method was 44%, which was comparable to 44% using the conventional method but specificity was 90%, which was significantly higher than 77% using the conventional method (p < 0.05). The diagnostic performance of the MUS method was higher (AUC, conventional 0.60 vs. MUS 0.67, p = 0.185).
conclusionUse of the MUS method improved specificity in diagnosis of IHD while maintaining sensitivity, compared with the conventional method. The MUS method can achieve an improvement in diagnostic accuracy equivalent to the supine position, particularly in patients who have difficulty performing the prone position, without increasing the patient burden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37043135What 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.