1993
DOI: 10.1097/00006231-199301000-00006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correlation of 99Tcm-sestamibi SPECT with coronary angiography in general hospital practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
2

Year Published

1998
1998
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Among the studies which recruited more than 100 patients, Van Train and colleagues reported a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 36% in 124 patients (19% had a previous myocardial infarct) who underwent exercise sestamibi SPECT and coronary angiography 29. Solot and associates reported a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 71% for exercise sestamibi SPECT in 128 patients 31. Previous studies of exercise tetrofosmin imaging reported a sensitivity ranging between 58% and 95% and a specificity ranging between 54% and 95% for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease 32-34…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the studies which recruited more than 100 patients, Van Train and colleagues reported a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 36% in 124 patients (19% had a previous myocardial infarct) who underwent exercise sestamibi SPECT and coronary angiography 29. Solot and associates reported a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 71% for exercise sestamibi SPECT in 128 patients 31. Previous studies of exercise tetrofosmin imaging reported a sensitivity ranging between 58% and 95% and a specificity ranging between 54% and 95% for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease 32-34…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The forest plot for sensitivity (figure 2) showed heterogeneity (Cochrane Q p<0.1). Six small-sample-size studies were primarily responsible for this heterogeneity 37 39 43 45 47 49. However, there was no significant heterogeneity in the forest plot for negative likelihood ratio (1−Sensitivity/Specificity; figure 3), implying that it is reasonable to combine the included studies to obtain pooled estimates.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[28][29][30] It is possible that the observed disagreements between these tests could partially be explained by variability in interpretation of the imaging studies. However this is unlikely to fully explain the observed differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%