ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Quantitative and semi-quantitative comparison of myocardial blood flow between
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dynamic imaging with cardiac-dedicated cadmium-zinc-telluride single-photon emission computed tomography (CZT-SPECT) enables both the absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and the semi-quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). This study aimed to investigate and compare differences in quantitative and semi-quantitative outcomes between technetium-99m-tetrofosmin ( Methods: Patients with no or mild coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessment using a CZT-SPECT continuous rapid dynamic acquisition protocol were retrospectively enrolled in the study (n=100 per group). Quantitative perfusion parameters [rest MBF (rMBF), stress MBF (sMBF), and MFR] were compared between groups for each coronary territory and the whole left ventricle (LV). Within-group coefficients of variation (CVs) and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed. Semi-quantitative perfusion indices and left ventricular functional parameters were also compared. MPI image quality was scored for both groups. Comparisons of scores and assessments of interobserver reproducibility were performed. Results: No significant differences were observed in the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the TF and MIBI groups (all P>0.05). Quantitative flow analysis revealed no significant between-group differences in rMBF for the left circumflex (LCX) artery, right coronary artery (RCA), or the global LV (all P>0.05). In contrast, significant between-group differences were observed in rMBF in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery, as well as in sMBF and MFR across all coronary territories and global LV values (all values were higher in the MIBI group than in the TF group; all P<0.05). The within-group CVs were consistently lower in the TF group than in the corresponding MIBI group. Additionally, the CVs for rMBF were lower than those for sMBF and MFR in both groups across all coronary territories and global LV values. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed negative beta (β) coefficients for TF relative to MIBI. No significant differences were found in the semi-quantitative MPI perfusion indices or the left ventricular functional parameters between groups (all P>0.05). Image quality scores differed significantly in both between-group comparisons and within-group comparisons between stress and rest imaging (all P<0.05). Scores were lower in the TF group than in the MIBI group, suggesting better MPI image quality with TF. Additionally, rest image scores were lower than stress image scores in both groups. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were excellent (0.869-0.957, all P<0.05). Conclusions: Under a continuous rapid dynamic acquisition protocol,
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.