Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26546010›Full record

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.

Imke Schatka, Desiree Weiberg, Stephanie Reichelt, Nicole Owsianski-Hille, Thorsten Derlin, Georg Berding, Frank M Bengel

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Feasibility of whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Imke SchatkaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Desiree WeibergDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Stephanie ReicheltDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Nicole Owsianski-HilleDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Thorsten DerlinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Georg BerdingDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Frank M BengelDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. bengel.frank@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBedsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotionMultimodal ImagingNeoplasmsPatient PositioningPositron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedWhole Body ImagingContinuous bed motionHybrid imagingPET/CTWhole-body imaging

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.