ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2018
Influence of ROI definition on the heart-to-mediastinum ratio in planar
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Absolute quantitation of sympathetic nerve activity using [EJNMMI reports · 2024Article
- Three-Dimensional Heart Segmentation and Absolute Quantitation of CardiacAnnals of nuclear cardiology · 2023Article
- Convolutional neural network-based automatic heart segmentation and quantitation inEJNMMI research · 2021Article
- CardiacJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- IsAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2018Article
- Cross calibration ofAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2017Article
- Standardization ofClinical and translational imaging · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIodine-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine ( METHODS AND
resultsThe results of three different methods of ROI definition (clinical routine (CLI), simple standardization (STA), and semi-automated (AUT) were compared. Ranges of 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of inter-observer variabilities were 0.28 and 0.13 for STA and AUT, respectively. Considering a HMR of 1.60 as the lower limit of normal, 13 of 32 (41%) for method STA and 5 of 32 (16%) for method AUT of all HMR measurements could not be classified to normal or pathologic. Ranges of 95% LoA of inter-method variabilities were 0.72 for CLI vs AUT, 0.65 for CLI vs STA, and 0.31 for STA vs AUT.
conclusionDifferent methods of ROI definition result in different ranges of the LoA of the measured HMR with relevance for rendering the results to normal or pathological innervation. We could demonstrate that standardized protocols can help keep methodological variabilities limited, narrowing the gray zone of renderability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.