Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40032742›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2025

Xiaochun Zhang, Zeyin Xiang, Fanghu Wang, Xiaoqiang Pan, Qing Zhang, Peng Wang, Lei Jiang, Hui Yuan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. How can children benefit from total-body PET?The British journal of radiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

Xiaochun Zhang *PET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Zeyin Xiang *PET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Fanghu Wang *PET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Xiaoqiang PanPET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Qing ZhangPET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Peng WangPET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Lei JiangPET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. leijiang1031@163.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9479-132X
Hui YuanPET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. oliver.yh@outlook.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9122-3407

Funding

Guangdong Province Medical Science and Technology Research Foundation A2024039Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital KY0120211130National Key R&D Program of China 2024YFF0509200National Natural Science Foundation of China 81971645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore the feasibility of reducing scan duration of

methodsForty-five patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) performing rest

resultsThere were no significant differences in subjective visual scores between G7-G5 and G10 groups (p > 0.05). A significant decrease in overall impression and image noise of G3-G2 was observed when compared to G10 (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference in lesion visibility was noted between G3 and G10 (p > 0.05). All G3 image quality was clinically acceptable (≥ 3 points). Except for EDV and ESV, other quantitative parameters showed no significant difference between G7-G3 and G10 (p > 0.05) and agreements were good (ICC = 0.974-0.998). For G2, only TPD exhibited no significant difference when compared to G10 (p > 0.05).

conclusionRegarding imaging quality and parametric quantification accuracy of

Indexed as

13N-NH3Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI)Scan durationTotal-body PET/CT

Identifiers

PMID40032742
PMCPMC11876496

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.