ReviewFrontiers in medicine2023
Positron emission tomography and its role in the assessment of vulnerable plaques in comparison to other imaging modalities.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis and management of vulnerable plaques are topics of high interest in the cardiovascular field. Although imaging techniques like computed tomography angiography (MCTA) and ultrasonography (USG) can structurally evaluate atherosclerotic plaques, they are limited in examining internal cellular processes. Positron emission tomography (PET) molecular imaging, on the other hand, can highlight these cellular processes, including inflammation, angiogenesis, and lipid oxidation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also a valuable non-invasive imaging technique that can provide detailed anatomical and functional information on the cardiovascular system. In this review, we compare the advantages and drawbacks of MCTA, USG and MRI imaging techniques with PET molecular imaging in evaluating vulnerable plaques. PET imaging allows physicians to measure different pathophysiological events within the plaque using intravenous radiotracers, of which 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) is the most validated one. By using 18F-FDG, physicians can understand the formation of the plaque, assess the accumulation of macrophages, and predict major cardiovascular events. However, some limitations exist in using 18F-FDG, including myocardial uptake and low sensitivity in imaging coronary arteries. We also mention other radiotracers that can help in evaluating vulnerable plaques, including 18F-NaF. Although PET imaging is still challenging, it has shown promise in evaluating vulnerable plaques and could be used to intervene in high-risk patients before major cardiovascular events occur.
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.