Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37337825›Full record

ArticleMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy2023

Clinical Utility of CT-based Attenuation-correction in Myocardial Perfusion SPECT Imaging.

Filiz Hatipoğlu, Neslihan Çetin

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Filiz Hatipoğluİzmir Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Nuclear Medicine, İzmir, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-6893-434X
Neslihan ÇetinÜmraniye Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Nuclear Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2517-2274
Izmir Atatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRÜmraniye Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to investigate and compare the role of computed tomography (CT)-based attenuation-corrected images (AC) with non-attenuation-corrected images (NAC) obtained by single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). Methods: The data of 124 patients who were applied one-day stress-rest Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT/CT MPI and who had coronary angiography (CAG) results within ±3 months were retrospectively reviewed. AC and NAC images were visually evaluated by two nuclear medicine specialists in a consensus. CAG results were used as the reference standard. Results: Specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy were calculated as 66%, 61%, 71%, 79% and 69%, 70% for AC and NAC imaging in the whole group, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between AC and NAC images for specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy in the male and female subgroups. In the diagnosis of right coronary artery (RCA) disease, CT AC significantly increased the specificity from 87% to 96%. However, in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) region, the specificity was significantly reduced from 95% to 77%. Conclusion: CT-based AC did not significantly contribute to diagnostic performance for increased specificity for the RCA and reduced specificity in the LAD region. Therefore, AC images should always be evaluated side by side with NAC images to benefit from the different advantages of both techniques.

Indexed as

attenuation correctionMyocardial perfusionscintigraphy

Identifiers

PMID37337825
PMCPMC10284174
OpenAlexW4381250151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.