↓ Skip to main content

Myocardial CT Perfusion Imaging and SPECT for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease: A Head-to-Head Comparison from the CORE320 Multicenter Diagnostic Performance Study

Overview of attention for article published in Radiology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Myocardial CT Perfusion Imaging and SPECT for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease: A Head-to-Head Comparison from the CORE320 Multicenter Diagnostic Performance Study
Published in
Radiology, August 2014
DOI 10.1148/radiol.14140806
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard T. George, Vishal C. Mehra, Marcus Y. Chen, Kakuya Kitagawa, Armin Arbab-Zadeh, Julie M. Miller, Matthew B. Matheson, Andrea L. Vavere, Klaus F. Kofoed, Carlos E. Rochitte, Marc Dewey, Tan S. Yaw, Hiroyuki Niinuma, Winfried Brenner, Christopher Cox, Melvin E. Clouse, João A. C. Lima, Marcelo Di Carli

Abstract

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of myocardial computed tomographic (CT) perfusion imaging and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging in the diagnosis of anatomically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) as depicted at invasive coronary angiography. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Sixteen centers enrolled 381 patients from November 2009 to July 2011. Patients underwent rest and adenosine stress CT perfusion imaging and rest and either exercise or pharmacologic stress SPECT before and within 60 days of coronary angiography. Images from CT perfusion imaging, SPECT, and coronary angiography were interpreted at blinded, independent core laboratories. The primary diagnostic parameter was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated with use of prespecified cutoffs. The reference standard was a stenosis of at least 50% at coronary angiography as determined with quantitative methods. Results CAD was diagnosed in 229 of the 381 patients (60%). The per-patient sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CAD (stenosis ≥50%) were 88% (202 of 229 patients) and 55% (83 of 152 patients), respectively, for CT perfusion imaging and 62% (143 of 229 patients) and 67% (102 of 152 patients) for SPECT, with Az values of 0.78 (95% confidence interval: 0.74, 0.82) and 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.64, 0.74) (P = .001). The sensitivity of CT perfusion imaging for single- and multivessel CAD was higher than that of SPECT, with sensitivities for left main, three-vessel, two-vessel, and one-vessel disease of 92%, 92%, 89%, and 83%, respectively, for CT perfusion imaging and 75%, 79%, 68%, and 41%, respectively, for SPECT. Conclusion The overall performance of myocardial CT perfusion imaging in the diagnosis of anatomic CAD (stenosis ≥50%), as demonstrated with the Az, was higher than that of SPECT and was driven in part by the higher sensitivity for left main and multivessel disease. © RSNA, 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Unspecified 7 10%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 25 35%
Unknown 4 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 55%
Unspecified 11 15%
Engineering 5 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 4 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#562,068
of 13,520,735 outputs
Outputs from Radiology
#348
of 6,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,415
of 188,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiology
#10
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,520,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 188,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.