ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2025
Ventilation/perfusion SPECT in children: Feasibility, impact on clinical decision-making and interrater agreement.
Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 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.
- Ventilation/perfusion SPECT in children: Feasibility, impact on clinical decision-making and interrater agreement.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt remains to be established whether it provides any clinical or diagnostic benefits to perform ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy as a single photon emission computed tomography in children. Here, we report our experience with this modality, evaluate its impact on clinical decision-making and assess its interrater agreement.
methodsAll V/Q scintigraphies performed in children over a 1-year period were identified, and patient files were reviewed. Two nuclear medicine physicians, blinded to patient data and each other's readings, interpreted all scintigraphies.
resultsA total of 20 planar and SPECT V/Q scintigraphies were identified. In 17/20 cases (85%), the results of the scan were found to directly inform clinical decision-making. SPECT mainly ruled out the presence of ventilation and perfusion defects that were suspected on planar scintigraphy. In terms of interrater agreement, Cohen's ϰ coefficients for planar ventilation and perfusion scintigraphy were 0.34 and 0.38 (fair agreement), respectively, while the corresponding values for SPECT were 0.42 and 0.61 (moderate to substantial agreement).
conclusionIt is both feasible and clinically meaningful to perform V/Q SPECT in children. In this patient group, V/Q SPECT furthermore seems to have better interrater agreement than planar scintigraphy.
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.