ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
Agreement between SPECT/CT-derived autoplanar imaging and conventional planar imaging in
Article in Annals 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the agreement and reproducibility of SPECT/CT-derived AutoPlanar imaging compared with conventional planar imaging in MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 54 patients with suspected ATTR-CM who underwent
resultsExact agreement in Perugini scores between conventional planar and AutoPlanar imaging was observed in 90.7% of patients at 1 h and 98.1% at 3 h, with quadratic weighted κ values of 0.938 and 0.992, respectively. H/CL ratios demonstrated excellent agreement between the two imaging methods, with correlation coefficients of 0.987 at both imaging time points. Using H/CL ratio cutoffs of ≥ 1.5 at 1 h and ≥ 1.3 at 3 h, agreement for H/CL-based positive/negative classification was 98.1% and 96.3%, respectively.
conclusionSPECT/CT-derived AutoPlanar imaging showed excellent agreement with conventional planar imaging for both visual and semiquantitative assessment in
Indexed as
Identifiers
42678671What 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.