ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Diagnostic Performance of Cardiac MRI and FDG-PET in Myocardial Inflammation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac inflammation, including myocarditis and cardiac sarcoidosis, poses significant risks and is a diagnostic challenge that is associated with heart failure, arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death. Endomyocardial biopsy remains the reference standard but is limited by invasiveness, sampling error in patchy disease, and procedural risk. Noninvasive imaging, particularly cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and fluorodeoxyglucose F-18 positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET), is therefore central to diagnosis and follow-up. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic performance of CMR and FDG-PET, focusing on sensitivity, specificity, and clinical utility. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, we searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through October 2025. We included prospective and retrospective adult studies of suspected or confirmed cardiac inflammation undergoing CMR or FDG-PET. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality with QUADAS-2. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a random-effects model, heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic, and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were used to examine threshold effects. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria (17 CMR, 9 FDG-PET). CMR showed consistent accuracy with a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.92) and a specificity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.90). FDG-PET had higher sensitivity, 0.93 (95% CI 0.89-0.96), but lower and more variable specificity, 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.79). Both modalities are valuable and complementary. CMR's high, reliable specificity and tissue characterization (edema, fibrosis) make it an appropriate first-line test without ionizing radiation. FDG-PET's greater sensitivity suits the detection of active metabolic inflammation, particularly in sarcoidosis, when strict patient preparation limits false positives. These results support a stepwise approach: CMR first, with FDG-PET for equivocal cases or when assessment of active disease is needed.
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.