ArticleJournal of medical signals and sensors
Comparison of Accuracy in Calculation of Absorbed Dose to Patients Following Bone Scan with (99m)Tc-Marked Diphosphonates by Two Different Background Correction Methods.
Article in Journal of medical signals and sensors. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To improve the accuracy of the activity quantification and the image quality in scintigraphy, scatter correction is a vital procedure. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy in calculation of absorbed dose to patients following bone scan with (99m)Tc-marked diphosphonates ((99m)Tc-MDP) by two different methods of background correction in conjugate view method. This study involved 22 patients referring to the Nuclear Medicine Center of Shahid Chamran Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. After the injection of (99m)Tc-MDP, whole-body images from patients were acquired at 10, 60, 90, and 180 min. Organ activities were calculated using the conjugate view method by Buijs and conventional background correction. Finally, the absorbed dose was calculated using the Medical Internal Radiation Dosimetry (MIRD) technique. The results of this study showed that the absorbed dose per unit of injected activity (rad/mCi) ± standard deviation for pelvis bone, bladder, and kidneys by Buijs method was 0.19 ± 0.05, 0.08 ± 0.01, and 0.03 ± 0.01 and by conventional method was 0.13 ± 0.04, 0.08 ± 0.01, and 0.024 ± 0.01, respectively. This showed that Buijs background correction method had a high accuracy compared to conventional method for the estimated absorbed dose of bone and kidneys whereas, for the bladder, its accuracy was low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27014610PMC4786961What 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.