ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2014
Assessing the prognostic implications of myocardial perfusion studies: identification of patients at risk vs patients who may benefit from intervention?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness of Pharmacologic SPECT and PET MPI in Symptomatic CAD Patients.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2019Trial
- Quantification of myocardial blood flow using non-electrocardiogram-triggered MRI with three-slice coverage.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2016Article
- How to Utilize Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of cardiovascular ultrasound · 2015Review
- Clinical decision making with myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has a well-established role in improving risk stratification. Recent analyses, compared with older data, suggest that the yield of stress MPI has decreased. In part, this trend relates to testing patients with heterogeneous, but improved, risk factor modification. In this setting, positron emission tomography with myocardial flow reserve enhances risk stratification as it reflects the end result of atherosclerosis. Recent studies have also emphasized the clinical impact of incremental risk stratification by assessing net reclassification improvement (NRI). Previous retrospective studies have favored an ischemic threshold to select patients that benefit from revascularization, but this finding has not been corroborated in randomized trials. However, no large randomized trial has directly tested a strategy of revascularization for patients with at least a moderate amount of ischemia at risk. Unfortunately, even when faced with a significantly abnormal MPI result, subsequent action is too often absent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24585113What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.