ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Clinical respiratory motion correction software (reconstruct, register and averaged-RRA), for
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of data-driven motion correction for respiratory movement on lesion detectability in PET-CT: a phantom study.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a respiratory motion-corrected image reconstruction algorithm in 2-[Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Respiratory 4D-Gating F-18 FDG PET/CT Scan for Liver Malignancies: Feasibility in Liver Cancer Patient and Tumor Quantitative Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Image Registration ofHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Comparison of two elastic motion correction approaches for whole-body PET/CT: motion deblurring vs gate-to-gate motion correction.EJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Characterization of continuous bed motion effects on patient breathing and respiratory motion correction in PET/CT imaging.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Respiratory-gated PET/CT for pulmonary lesion characterisation-promises and problems.The British journal of radiology · 2018Review
- Trends in oncologic hybrid imaging.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2018Review
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
objectiveOn fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose (
methodsThree phantoms containing five spheres filled with
resultsPhantoms: 4 min was required to obtain a stable quantification with the RRA method. The reference phase and the number of phases used for RRA did not affect the quantification which was similar on static acquisitions but different on ungated images. The results showed that the maximum standard uptake value (SUV PATIENTS: SUV
conclusionAccording to the results obtained using phantoms, RRA method is promising, showing a real impact on the lesion quantification on phantom data. With regard to the patient study, our results showed a trend towards an increase in the SUVs and a decrease in the volume between the ungated and RRA data. We also noticed a statistically significant correlation between the quantitative restoration obtained with RRA compared with ungated data and lesion displacement, indicating that the RRA approach should be reserved to patients with small lesions or nodes moving with a displacement larger than 1.2 cm. Advances in knowledge: This article investigates the performances of motion correction software recently introduced in PET. The conclusion revealed that such respiratory motion correction approach shows a real impact on the lesion quantification but must be reserved to the patient for whom lesion displacement was confirmed and high enough to clearly impact lesion evaluation.
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.