ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Accuracy of Semiconductor Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Versus Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) for Myocardial Viability Assessment.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Cardiac MRI-guided therapeutics in ischemic cardiomyopathy: impact on heart-team consensus and outcomes.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Evaluating myocardial viability is critical for developing optimal strategies for ischemic cardiomyopathy. While semiconductor single-photon emission computed tomography (D-SPECT) demonstrated higher image quality than conventional Anger cameras for assessing myocardial viability, its accuracy compared to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in the same patient cohort is still unknown. Methods We conducted a retrospective study on patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease who underwent D-SPECT and CMR within 100 days. Rest deficit score on D-SPECT and depth of contrast enhancement on late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in CMR were classified and compared using a 16-segment analysis. Follow-up echocardiography was performed about a year after the initial examinations, detecting whether the optimal medical therapy (OMT) was followed by invasive therapy (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG] or percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]). The five-year survival rates were also compared. Results The study comprised 336 segments from 21 consecutive patients collected between January 2015 and December 2017. Using LGE as a viability criterion, a D-SPECT score of three had the highest diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve: 0.97). Follow-up echocardiography showed significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients receiving OMT + PCI/CABG compared to OMT alone (OMT vs. OMT + PCI/CABG; 1.5% ± 3.4% vs. 7.1% ± 5.0%, p = 0.008); five-year survival rate did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusions Deficits observed at rest on D-SPECT and LGE extent on CMR showed a strong correlation in evaluating myocardial viability, implying that D-SPECT is a viable alternative to CMR for this purpose.
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.