Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2016
A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of novel continuous bed motion versus traditional bed position whole-body PET/CT imaging.
Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous bed motion versus step-and-shoot acquisition in LAFOV PET/CT: insights from multi-phantom and patient studies.EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Dynamic FDG PET/CT imaging: quantitative assessment, advantages and application in the diagnosis of malignant solid tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Development of an external system for monitoring the couch speed in radiotherapy using continuous bed movement.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Feasibility of whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- Impact of low injected activity on data driven respiratory gating for PET/CT imaging with continuous bed motion.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Article
- Characterization of continuous bed motion effects on patient breathing and respiratory motion correction in PET/CT imaging.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Performance evaluation of the 5-Ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT system using the national electrical manufacturers association NU 2-2012 Standard.Medical physics · 2019Article
- Comparison of Step-and-Shoot and Continuous-Bed-Motion PET Modes of Acquisition for Limited-View Organ Scans.Journal of nuclear medicine technology · 2017Article
- Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeContinuous bed motion has recently been introduced for whole-body PET/CT, and represents a paradigm shift towards individualized and flexible acquisition without the limitations of bed position-based planning. Increased patient comfort due to lack of abrupt table position changes may be another albeit still unproven advantage. For robust clinical implementation, image quality and quantitative accuracy should at least be equal to the prior standard of bed position-based step-and-shoot imaging.
methodsThe study included 68 consecutive patients referred for whole-body PET/CT for various malignancies. The patients underwent traditional step-and-shoot and novel continuous bed motion acquisition in the same session in a randomized crossover design. The patients and two independent observers were blinded to the sequence of scan techniques. Patient comfort/satisfaction was examined using a standardized questionnaire. SUVs were compared for reference tissue (liver, muscle) and tumour lesions. PET image quality and misalignment with CT images were evaluated on a scale of 1 - 4.
resultsPatients preferred continuous bed motion over step-and-shoot (P = 0.0001). It was considered to be more relaxing (38 % vs. 8 %), quieter (34 % vs. 8 %), and more fluid (64 % vs. 8 %). Image quality, SUV and CT misalignment did not differ between the techniques. Continuous bed motion resulted in better end-plane image quality (P < 0.0001). Regardless of the technique, second examinations had significantly higher tumour lesion SUVmax values (P = 0.0002), and a higher CT misalignment score (P = 0.0017).
conclusionOncological PET/CT with continuous bed motion enhances patient comfort and is associated with image quality at least comparable to that with traditional bed position-based step-and-shoot acquisition.qq.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26546010What 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.