ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2014
SPECT/CT workflow and imaging protocols.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whole-Body SPECT/CT: Protocol Variation and Technical Consideration-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- State-of-the-art SPECT/CT: technology, methodology and applications-defining a new role for an undervalued multimodality imaging technique.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntroducing a hybrid imaging method such as single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT greatly alters the routine in the nuclear medicine department. It requires designing new workflow processes and the revision of original scheduling process and imaging protocols. In addition, the imaging protocol should be adapted for each individual patient, so that performing CT is fully justified and the CT procedure is fully tailored to address the clinical issue. Such refinements often occur before the procedure is started but may be required at some intermediate stage of the procedure. Furthermore, SPECT/CT leads in many instances to a new partnership with the radiology department. This article presents practical advice and highlights the key clinical elements which need to be considered to help understand the workflow process of SPECT/CT and optimise imaging protocols.
methodsThe workflow process using SPECT/CT is complex in particular because of its bimodal character, the large spectrum of stakeholders, the multiplicity of their activities at various time points and the need for real-time decision-making.
resultsWith help from analytical tools developed for quality assessment, the workflow process using SPECT/CT may be separated into related, but independent steps, each with its specific human and material resources to use as inputs or outputs. This helps identify factors that could contribute to failure in routine clinical practice. At each step of the process, practical aspects to optimise imaging procedure and protocols are developed. A decision-making algorithm for justifying each CT indication as well as the appropriateness of each CT protocol is the cornerstone of routine clinical practice using SPECT/CT.
conclusionIn conclusion, implementing hybrid SPECT/CT imaging requires new ways of working. It is highly rewarding from a clinical perspective, but it also proves to be a daily challenge in terms of management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24318158What 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.