Interpretive reproducibility of stress Tc-99m sestamibi tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 257-269

  Golub, Robert J ^b   Ahlberg, Alan W ^b   McClellan, Joseph R ^b   Herman, Steven D ^b   Travin, Mark I ^b   Mather, Jeffrey F ^b   Aitken, Percy W ^b   Baron, John I ^b   Heller, Gary V ^a  

^a HARTFORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Interobserver agreement; Interpretive reproducibility; Intraobserver agreement; Tomographic imaging

Indexed keywords

METHOXY ISOBUTYL ISONITRILE TECHNETIUM TC 99M;

ARTICLE; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; HEART MUSCLE BLOOD FLOW; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LEFT ANTERIOR DESCENDING CORONARY ARTERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 0032981642     PISSN: 10713581     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1071-3581(99)90037-5     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Fintel DJ, Links JM, Brinker JA, Frank TL, Parker M, Becker LC. Improved diagnostic performance of exercise thallium-201 single photon emission computed tomography over planar imaging in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a receiver operating characteristic analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;13:600-12.
2. Zaret BL, Beller GA, eds. Nuclear cardiology: state of the art and future directions. St. Louis: Mosby, 1993.
3. Kiat H, Maddahi J, Roy LT, et al. Comparison of technetium-99m methoxy isobutyl isonitrile and thallium-201 for evaluation of coronary heart disease by planar and tomographic methods. Am Heart J 1989;117:1-11.
4. Taillefer R, Lambert R, Dupras G, et al. Clinical comparison between thallium-201 and Tc-99m-methoxy-isobutyl isonitrile (hexamibi) myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med 1989;15:280-6.
5. Kann JK, McGhie I, Akers MS, et al. Quantitative rotational tomography with Tl-201 and Tc-99m 2-methoxy-isobutyl isonitrile: a direct comparison in normal individuals and patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 1989;79:1282-93.
6. Sigal SL, Soufer R, Fetterman RC, Matters YA, Wackers FJ. Reproducibility of quantitative planar thallium-201 scintigraphy: Quantitative criteria for reversibility of myocardial perfusion defects. J Nucl Med 1991;32:759-65.
7. Wackers FJ, Bodenheimer M, Fleiss JL, et al. Factors affecting uniformity in interpretation of planar thallium-201 imaging in a multicenter trial. J Am Coil Cardiol 1993;21:1064-74.
8. Trobaugh GB, Wackers FJ, Sokole EB, DeRouen TA, Ritchie JL, Hamilton GW. Thallium-201 myocardial imaging: an interinstitutional study of observer variability. J Nucl Med 1978;19:359-63.
9. Okada RD, Boucher CA, Kirshenbaum HK, et al. Improved diagnostic accuracy of thallium-201 stress test using multiple observers and criteria derived from interobserver analysis of variance. Am J Cardiol 1980;46:619-24.
10. Ritchie JL, Gibbons RJ, Johnson LL, et al. Guidelines for training in adult cardiovascular medicine: core cardiology training symposium (COCATS) - task force 5: training in nuclear cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:19-23.
11. Ellestad MH. Stress testing: principles and practice. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis; 1986:116-7.
12. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37-46.
13. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measure of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
14. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1981:222-3.
15. Atwood JE, Jensen D, Froelicher V, et al. Agreement in human interpretation of analog thallium myocardial perfusion images. Circulation 1981;64:601-9.
16. Hendel RC, Parker M, Wackers FJ, Rigo P, Lahiri A, Zaret BL. Reduced variability of interpretation and improved image quality with a technetium-99m myocardial perfusion agent: comparison of thallium-201 and technetium-99m-labeled tetrofosmin. J Nucl Cardiol 1994;1:509-14.
17. Hendel RC, Verani MS, Miller DD, et al. Diagnostic utility oftomographic myocardial perfusion imaging with technetium-99m furifosmin (Q 12) compared with thallium-201: result of a phase III multicenter trial. J Nucl Cardiol 1996;3:291-300.
18. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstem AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1493-9.
19. Picano E, Lattanzi F, Orlandini A, Marini C, L'abbate A. Stress echocardiography and the human factor: the importance of being expert. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:666-9.
20. Hoffman R, Lethen H, Marwick T, et al. Analysis of interinstitutional observer agreement in interpretation of dobutamine stress echocardiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:330-6.
21. Marcus ML, Skorton DJ, Johnson MR, Collins SM, Harrison DG, Kerber RE. Visual estimates of percent diameter coronary stenosis: "a battered gold standard." J Am Coll Cardiol 1988;11:882-5.
22. Detre KM, Wright E, Murphy ML, Takaro T. Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms. Circulation 1975;52:979-86.
23. Golub RJ, McClellan JR, Herman SD, et al. Effectiveness of nuclear cardiology training guidelines: a comparison of trainees with experienced readers. J Nucl Cardiol 1996;3:114-8.
24. Wackers FJ. Science, art, and artifacts: how important is quantification for the practicing physician interpreting myocardial perfusion studies. J Nucl Cardiol 1994;S109-17.
25. Simons M, Parker JA, Udelson JE, Gervino EV. The role of clinical data in interpretation of perfusion images. J Nucl Med 1994;35:740-1.
26. Simons M, Parker JA, Donohoe KJ, Udelson JE, Gervino EV. The impact of clinical data on interpretation of thallium scintigrams. J Nucl Cardiol 1994;1:365-71.