ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Clinical determinants of agreement and discordance between stress SPECT and invasive coronary angiography.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging offers a non-invasive alternative for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD), however often yields inconclusive results. This study aimed to characterize patterns of agreement and discordance between stress SPECT and ICA, and to evaluate potential risk stratification. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 915 patients with suspected CAD who underwent stress SPECT followed by ICA within three months (enrollment: 2019-2020). Clinical, demographic, and imaging data were extracted from medical records. Variables associated with diagnostic agreement were identified using univariate logistic regression. A predictive model combining SPECT results with clinical variables was developed using backward stepwise logistic regression and evaluated by AUC-ROC. Results: Diagnostic agreement between stress SPECT and ICA was observed in 624 patients (68.2%), while 291 patients (31.8%) demonstrated discordant results. Agreement was associated with use of nitrates (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.31-7.73), antiplatelet therapy (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.86-3.56), renal failure (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.43-3.84), and type II diabetes mellitus (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.28-2.48), whereas female sex (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.73), smoking (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50-1.03), and higher body mass index (BMI; OR 0.95 per kg/m², 95% CI 0.92-0.99) were associated with disagreement. The final multivariable model included stress SPECT results, sex, BMI, smoking status, serum creatinine, renal failure, type II diabetes mellitus, and use of antiplatelets and nitrates and demonstrated improved discrimination compared with SPECT alone (AUC 0.72 vs. 0.54, Conclusion: In this exploratory study, clinical factors were associated with an agreement between stress SPECT and ICA. Incorporating clinical context alongside SPECT findings may help inform risk stratification.
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.