| Title |
Prognostic value of the cadmium-zinc-telluride camera: A comparison with a conventional (Anger) camera
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-015-0181-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jorge Daniel Oldan, Linda K Shaw, Paul Hofmann, Matthew Phelan, Jeffrey Nelson, Robert Pagnanelli, Salvador Borges-Neto |
| Abstract |
New multipinhole cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras allow for faster imaging and lower radiation doses for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) studies, but assessment of prognostic ability is necessary. We collected data from all myocardial SPECT perfusion studies performed over 15 months at our institution, using either a CZT or conventional Anger camera. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the relationship between camera type, imaging results, and either death or myocardial infarction (MI). Clinical variables including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and historical risk factors were used for population description and model adjustments. We had 2,088 patients with a total of 69 deaths and 65 MIs (122 events altogether). A 3% increase in DDB (difference defect burden) represented a 12% increase in the risk of death or MI, whereas a 3% increase in rest defect burden or stress defect burden represented an 8% increase; these risks were the same for both cameras (P > .24, interaction tests). The CZT camera has similar prognostic values for death and MI to conventional Anger cameras. This suggests that it may successfully be used to decrease patient dose. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 42% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,042
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,360
of 277,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.