ArticleScientific reports2024
Higher processing repeatability of myocardial flow reserve calculated using net retention model compared to one compartment model in SPECT studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Quantitative and semi-quantitative comparison of myocardial blood flow betweenQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion with CZT SPECT and SPECT/CT: Current Limitations and Recommendations for Future Improvements.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dynamic assessment of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) provides additional information that can improve diagnostic accuracy of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging in some clinical situations. This study assessed processing repeatability of these parameters calculated using two models-net retention (RET) and one compartment (1CM) in dynamic SPECT studies, using the latest version of Corridor 4DM software (v2024). Data of 107 patients were analyzed retrospectively (57 of whom were assessed in our previous study using 4DM v2015). Dynamic SPECT studies were carried out using a routine two-day rest-dipyridamole protocol. Data was processed in 4DM v2024 twice by one operator and once by another operator. Automatic heart image positioning during post-processing in 4DM v2024 was significantly improved compared to v2015, reducing the number of studies requiring extensive manual corrections from 41 to 12%. This significantly improved interobserver processing repeatability of MFR values in RCA territory compared to our previous study using v2015-from r = 0.67 to 0.85 (p = 0.0034). Interobserver processing repeatability of MBF and MFR in all 107 patients was significantly better in RET model compared to 1CM model. In conclusion, RET model is more reliable for calculating MBF and MFR values based on dynamic SPECT studies.
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.