ArticleNuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine2023
Myocardial Perfusion SPECT and ATTR imaging 2021 in Germany: Results of the 9th Survey.
Article in Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- SPECT and PET myocardial perfusion imaging in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland results of the 2nd joint survey 2024.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- [Coronary heart disease-a German paradox : Using AI-based technology to solve a relevant healthcare problem].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2026Review
- The Status of Neuroimaging with SPECT and PET in Germany: Results from the 1st Survey on Nuclear Neuroimaging in Germany in 2023.Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- SPECT and PET myocardial perfusion imaging in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland results of the first joint survey of 2021.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis paper presents the results of the 9th survey of myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) from the reporting year 2021.
methods218 questionnaires (131 practices (PR), 58 hospitals (HO), 29 university hospitals (UH)) were evaluated. Results of the last survey 2018 are set in squared brackets.
resultsMPS data from a total of 133,057 [145,930] patients (-8.8%) with 131,868 [143,707] stress and 106,546 [121,899] rest MPS were analysed. A comparison with official data revealed that 54% all MPS were recorded. From 2018 to 2021, official data showed a every year an increase in MPS numbers. On average, 610 [502] MPS patients (+22%) were examined in each department. 74% [69%] of the responders reported an increase or no changes in their MPS patient numbers. Ambulatory care cardiologists represented as always, the mayor referral group (68% [69%]). For the first time, pharmacological stress was more frequently applied than ergometry (42% [51]). Regadenoson was mostly used. The use of the different protocols remained nearly unchanged. Two-day protocols were predominantly applied (49% [48%]). A shift from multi-headed cameras (58% [72%]) to SPECT-CT systems (24% [17%]) was found. Attenuation correction was performed in 33% [26%] of all MPS. 88% [86%] of all stress, 88% [87%] of all rest and 87% [83%] of all stress and rest MPS were acquired as gated SPECT. 72% [67%] of all departments performed scoring by default. The number of departments without scoring decreased to 13% [16%].
conclusionsThe MPS Study 2021 shows that the long-term positive development of MPS imaging in Germany is continuing. The COVID-19 pandemia did not change this trend. The procedural and technical details of MPS imaging reveal a high level of guideline conformity.
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.