A systematic review for the evidence of recommendations and guidelines in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging




Besson Florent L., Treglia Giorgio, Bucerius Jan, Anagnostopoulos Constantinos, Buechel Ronny R., Dweck Marc R., Erba Paula A., Gaemperli Oliver, Gimelli Alessia, Gheysens Olivier, Glaudemans Andor W. J. M., Habib Gilbert, Hyafil Fabian, Lubberink Mark, Rischpler Christopher, Saraste Antti, Slart Riemer H. J. A.

PublisherSpringer

2024

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

51

8

2247

2259

1619-7070

1619-7089

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-024-06597-x

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00259-024-06597-x

https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/386854268



Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.

Methods: From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.

Results: A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.

Conclusion: The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.


Last updated on 2025-25-03 at 13:56