ArticleLa Radiologia medica2014
PET-CT in oncological patients: analysis of informal care costs in cost-benefit assessment.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disappearing colorectal liver metastases: the importance of radiographic-pathologic correlation in oncology care.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- Radiolabeled PET/MRI Nanoparticles for Tumor Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Combining Diagnostic Imaging and Pathology for Improving Diagnosis and Prognosis of Cancer.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2019Review
- Usefulness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy andOral and maxillofacial surgery · 2017Article
- Looking for answers: the current status of neoadjuvant treatment in localized soft tissue sarcomas.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe authors analysed the impact of nonmedical costs (travel, loss of productivity) in an economic analysis of PET-CT (positron-emission tomography-computed tomography) performed with standard contrast-enhanced CT protocols (CECT). MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom October to November 2009, a total of 100 patients referred to our institute were administered a questionnaire to evaluate the nonmedical costs of PET-CT. In addition, the medical costs (equipment maintenance and depreciation, consumables and staff) related to PET-CT performed with CECT and PET-CT with low-dose nonenhanced CT and separate CECT were also estimated.
resultsThe medical costs were 919.3 euro for PET-CT with separate CECT, and 801.3 euro for PET-CT with CECT. Therefore, savings of approximately 13% are possible. Moreover, savings in nonmedical costs can be achieved by reducing the number of hospital visits required by patients undergoing diagnostic imaging.
conclusionsNonmedical costs heavily affect patients' finances as well as having an indirect impact on national health expenditure. Our results show that PET-CT performed with standard dose CECT in a single session provides benefits in terms of both medical and nonmedical costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.