Book
Effectiveness is low (22/100) due to absence of RCTs/meta-analyses validating SPECT for mental health treatment; reviews note promising patterns but no causal proof or superiority over CBT/medication (e.g., PubMed reviews on neuroimaging utility). Safety is near-perfect (98/100) as reading poses no harm, though indirect risks from unproven scans. Quality (62/100) reflects good production value and scan database size but deducts for lack of rigorous external validation and ties to for-profit clin
Average (47/100) - Effectiveness is low (22/100) due to absence of RCTs/meta-analyses validating SPECT for mental health treatment; reviews note promising patterns but no causal proof or superiority over CBT/medication (e.g., PubMed reviews on neuroimaging utility). Safety is near-perfect (98/100) as reading poses no harm, though indirect risks from unproven scans. Quality (62/100) reflects good production value and scan database size but deducts for lack of rigorous external validation and ties to for-profit clinics. Overall 42/100 reflects educational potential outweighed by weak scientific backing.