ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2025
Feasibility of position emission tomography derived endocardial wall strain: direct comparison with magnetic resonance using hybrid
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of in Vivo Myocardial Strain with PET Derived Feature Tracking: Direct Comparison with Tagging-Cine Magnetic Resonance.Annals of nuclear cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to evaluate the feasibility of positron emission tomography feature tracking (PETFT) for assessing endocardial wall strain by comparing it with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived feature tracking (CMRFT).
methodsWe enrolled 83 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease who underwent rest-pharmacologic stress
resultsPETFT and CMRFT showed significant correlations (R = 0.57 [95% CI 0.41-0.70], R = 0.71 [95% CI 0.58-0.80], R = 0.59 [95% CI 0.43-0.71], and R = 0.69 [95% CI 0.56-0.79] for rest GLS, rest GCS, stress GLS, and stress GCS, respectively; p < 0.001 for all). Bland-Altman plot showed good agreements, while a systematic error was observed (LOA -10.2-8.8, -8.7-10.7, -10.5-8.5, and -9.4-12.0; bias -0.7, 1.0, -1.0, and 1.3; for rest GLS, rest GCS, stress GLS, and stress GCS; respectively).
conclusionPETFT has been identified as a feasible technique compared to CMRFT, highlighting its potential as a novel tool for assessing wall strain in routine clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39623099What 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.