SynthesisJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2023
Comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the assessment of myocardial viability: meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Determination of viable myocardium through delayed enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging combined withThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimContrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (Ce-CMR) and Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) are frequently utilized in clinical practice to assess myocardial viability. However, studies evaluating direct comparison between Ce-CMR and FDG-PET have a smaller sample size, and no clear distinction between the two imaging modalities has been defined. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing Ce-CMR and FDG-PET for the assessment of myocardial viability.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from their inception to 4/20/2022 with search terms "viability" AND "heart diseases" AND "cardiac magnetic resonance imaging" AND "positron-emission tomography." We extracted patient characteristics, segment level viability assessment according to Ce-CMR and FDG-PET, and change in regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMA) at follow-up.
resultsWe included four studies in the meta-analysis which provided viability assessment with Ce-CMR and FDG-PET in all patients and change in RWMA at follow-up. There were 82 patients among the four included studies, and 585 segments were compared for viability assessment. There were 59 (72%) males, and mean age was 65 years. The sensitivity (95% confidence interval-CI) and specificity (CI) of Ce-CMR for predicting myocardial recovery were 0.88 (0.66-0.96) and 0.64 (0.49-0.77), respectively. The sensitivity (CI) and specificity (CI) of FDG-PET for predicting myocardial recovery were 0.91 (0.63-0.99) and 0.67 (0.49-0.81), respectively.
conclusionFDG-PET and Ce-CMR have comparable diagnostic parameters in myocardial viability assessment and are consistent with prior research.
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.