ArticleWorld journal of nuclear medicine2026
A Clinical Impact Study of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Comparing Three Different Cardiac Software Packages at 1-Year Follow-Up.
Article in World journal of nuclear medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) aids in evaluating the left ventricular function and therefore helps in risk stratification and prognosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of three cardiac software packages (Emory Cardiac Toolbox, Cardiogam, and Myovation Evolution) at 1-year follow-up. Methods: This prospective investigation involved 370 patients who underwent myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Participants were stratified into three groups based on left ventricular ejection fraction determined by two-dimensional echocardiography. Among these, 294 patients were available for follow-up at 1 year. Semiquantitative parameters (summed rest score [SRS], summed stress score [SSS], summed difference score [SDS]) and quantitative parameters (defect extent [DE], transient ischemic dilatation [TID], ejection fraction [EF], end-diastolic volume [EDV], end-systolic volume [ESV], and stroke volume [SV]) derived from each software platform (ECTb, Cgam, and ME) were used to evaluate their diagnostic performance in predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACE) using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in patients during 1-year follow-up. Results: Among the 294 participants available for follow-up, 6% ( Conclusion: Majority of the MACE occurred in the group with high-risk characteristics. All three software packages demonstrated the ability to predict 1-year cardiac events, albeit with varying parameter cut-off values, sensitivities, and specificities.
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.