BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether the diagnostic accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) is different in men as compared to women. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate gender differences of SPECT MPI for the diagnosis of CAD (≥50% stenosis). METHOD: Two investigators independently performed a systematic review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception through January 2012 for English-language studies determining the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT MPI. We included prospective studies that compared SPECT MPI with conventional coronary angiography which provided sufficient data to calculate gender-specific true and false positives and negatives. Data from studies evaluating <20 patients of one gender were excluded. Bivariate meta-analysis was used to create summary receiver operating curves. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria, representing 1,148 women and 1,142 men. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded a mean sensitivity and specificity of 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.7%-88.6%) and 78.7% (CI 70.0%-85.3%) for SPECT MPI in women and 89.1% (CI 84.0%-92.7%) and 71.2% (CI 60.8%-79.8%) for SPECT MPI in men. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity (P = .15) or specificity (P = .23) between male and female subjects. CONCLUSION: In a bivariate meta-analysis of the available literature, the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT MPI is similar for both men and women.
BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether the diagnostic accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) is different in men as compared to women. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate gender differences of SPECT MPI for the diagnosis of CAD (≥50% stenosis). METHOD: Two investigators independently performed a systematic review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception through January 2012 for English-language studies determining the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT MPI. We included prospective studies that compared SPECT MPI with conventional coronary angiography which provided sufficient data to calculate gender-specific true and false positives and negatives. Data from studies evaluating <20 patients of one gender were excluded. Bivariate meta-analysis was used to create summary receiver operating curves. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria, representing 1,148 women and 1,142 men. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded a mean sensitivity and specificity of 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.7%-88.6%) and 78.7% (CI 70.0%-85.3%) for SPECT MPI in women and 89.1% (CI 84.0%-92.7%) and 71.2% (CI 60.8%-79.8%) for SPECT MPI in men. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity (P = .15) or specificity (P = .23) between male and female subjects. CONCLUSION: In a bivariate meta-analysis of the available literature, the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT MPI is similar for both men and women.
Authors: Jennifer H Mieres; Leslee J Shaw; Andrew Arai; Matthew J Budoff; Scott D Flamm; W Gregory Hundley; Thomas H Marwick; Lori Mosca; Ayan R Patel; Miguel A Quinones; Rita F Redberg; Kathryn A Taubert; Allen J Taylor; Gregory S Thomas; Nanette K Wenger Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; C Noel Bairey Merz; Carl J Pepine; Steven E Reis; Vera Bittner; Sheryl F Kelsey; Marian Olson; B Delia Johnson; Sunil Mankad; Barry L Sharaf; William J Rogers; Timothy R Wessel; Christopher B Arant; Gerald M Pohost; Amir Lerman; Arshed A Quyyumi; George Sopko Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-02-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Monika Kastner; Nancy L Wilczynski; Ann K McKibbon; Amit X Garg; R Brian Haynes Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: K F Van Train; E V Garcia; J Maddahi; J Areeda; C D Cooke; H Kiat; G Silagan; R Folks; J Friedman; L Matzer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jennifer H Mieres; Leslee J Shaw; Robert C Hendel; D Douglas Miller; Robert O Bonow; Daniel S Berman; Gary V Heller; Jennifer H Mieres; C Noel Bairey-Merz; Daniel S Berman; Robert O Bonow; Jean M Cacciabaudo; Gary V Heller; Robert C Hendel; Maria C Kiess; D Douglas Miller; Donna M Polk; Leslee J Shaw; Paola E Smanio; Mary N Walsh Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Steven G Lloyd; Farooq A Chaudhry; Wael A AlJaroudi; Fadi G Hage Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Robert J H Miller; Ananya Singh; Yuka Otaki; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Paul Kavanagh; Tejas Parekh; Lien-Hsin Hu; Heidi Gransar; Tali Sharir; Andrew J Einstein; Mathews B Fish; Terrence D Ruddy; Philipp A Kaufmann; Albert J Sinusas; Edward J Miller; Timothy M Bateman; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo F Di Carli; Joanna X Liang; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Claudia N van Waardhuizen; Marieke Langhout; Felisia Ly; Loes Braun; Tessa S S Genders; Steffen E Petersen; Kirsten E Fleischmann; Koen Nieman; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Deborah B Diercks; Bryn E Mumma; W Frank Peacock; Judd E Hollander; Basmah Safdar; Simon A Mahler; Chadwick D Miller; Francis L Counselman; Robert Birkhahn; Jon Schrock; Adam J Singer; John T Nagurney Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Louise Nissen; Simon Winther; Christin Isaksen; June Anita Ejlersen; Lau Brix; Grazina Urbonaviciene; Lars Frost; Lene Helleskov Madsen; Lars Lyhne Knudsen; Samuel Emil Schmidt; Niels Ramsing Holm; Michael Maeng; Mette Nyegaard; Hans Erik Bøtker; Morten Bøttcher Journal: Trials Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 2.279