SynthesisEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Comparative diagnostic performance of [
Synthesis in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to synthesise diagnostic evidence comparing a novel myocardial perfusion radiotracer [¹⁸F]flurpiridaz PET with SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in detecting coronary artery disease (CAD).
methodsA systematic search to Feb 2026 was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing [¹⁸F]flurpiridaz PET with SPECT/MPI were screened. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity using invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard. Secondary outcomes included image quality and radiation dose.
resultsOut of 558 studies, 28 publications were fully screened, and three trials comparing [¹⁸F]flurpiridaz PET with [⁹⁹ᵐTc]Tc-sestamibi/tetrofosmin SPECT were identified (1476 patients). For ≥ 50% stenosis, pooled sensitivity/specificity were 76% (95% CI 71-81%)/71% (63-78%) for flurpiridaz PET and 61% (53-69%)/76% (60-86%) for SPECT; for ≥ 70% stenosis, values were 87% (77-94%)/63% (52-73%) versus 73% (62-81%)/72% (50-87%), respectively. In patients with BMI ≥30kg/m², sensitivity/specificity were 74% (68-78%)/73% (64-80%) for flurpiridaz PET and 61% (49-72%)/75% (56-88%) for SPECT. In women, sensitivity/specificity were 73% (57-84%)/76% (70-81%) for flurpiridaz PET versus 50% (29-70%)/78% (60-90%) for SPECT. Rest and stress image quality favoured flurpiridaz PET (RR1.29[1.19-1.41] and 1.14[1.11-1.17], both p<0.00001) with superior image quality and lower radiation dose.
conclusionThis first meta-analysis suggests higher sensitivity of [¹⁸F]flurpiridaz PET vs SPECT MPI with significantly lower radiation dose and improved image quality. [¹⁸F]flurpiridaz is especially useful for assessing women and patients with high BMI, given its superior sensitivity and comparable subgroup specificity. However, findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited number of studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474502What 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.