| Title |
Advantages and disadvantages of PET and SPECT in a busy clinical practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-011-9490-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timothy M Bateman |
| Abstract |
The continued high utilization of rest-stress single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is supported by its known clinical benefits, established reimbursement, and wide availability of cameras and radiopharmaceuticals. However, traditional rest-stress SPECT protocols tend to be lengthy and inefficient, and the prevalence of equivocal studies continues to be a problem. The use of stress-only SPECT protocols in selected patients, and a new generation of ultrafast SPECT cameras have led to improved image quality, reduced dosimetry and shorter, more efficient MPI protocols. The utilization of positron emission tomographic (PET) MPI has been accelerated by the availability of radiopharmaceuticals that can be generated on-site, and by the availability of more PET cameras. Emerging evidence consistently demonstrates that PET provides improved image quality, greater interpretive certainty, higher diagnostic accuracy, lower patient dosimetry, and shorter imaging protocols as compared to SPECT. Importantly, PET imaging allows assessment of left ventricular function at peak-stress, and evaluation of microvascular function through the measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow at rest and at peak-stress. Wider utilization of PET MPI is hindered by a high cost of entry, high on-going costs, and an immature reimbursement structure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kuwait | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 141 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 37 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 25% |
| Engineering | 15 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 44 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,205,295
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#480
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,160
of 253,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#4
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 253,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.