ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2016
Comparisons and contrasts in the practice of nuclear cardiology in the United States and Japan.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2016. 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.
- IQ·SPECT technology and its clinical applications using multicenter normal databases.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are interesting differences between the practice of Nuclear Cardiology in Japan and that in the United States and associated unique challenges. Differences in patient body habitus and the perceived importance of limiting patient radiation dose have resulted in different radiopharmaceutical and imaging protocol preferences. Governmental approval and reimbursement policies for various radiopharmaceuticals have promulgated adoption of different clinical applications. Both countries have experienced a significant decline in the number of nuclear cardiology studies performed, in part due to decreased governmental funding and reimbursement and to the emergence of competing modalities. Whereas precertification and test substitution have impacted negatively on the sustainability and growth of nuclear cardiology in the United States, in Japan those deterrents have not yet been encountered. Instead, communication barriers between nuclear medicine physicians and referring cardiologists are cited as a more significant barrier.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27620885What 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.