Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28124091›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2017

Clinical evaluation of TOF versus non-TOF on PET artifacts in simultaneous PET/MR: a dual centre experience.

Edwin E G W Ter Voert, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Sangtae Ahn, Florian Wiesinger, M Mehdi Khalighi, Craig S Levin, Andrei H Iagaru, Greg Zaharchuk, Martin Huellner, Gaspar Delso

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Reducing acquisition time in O-(2-Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Article
  4. International EANM-SNMMI-ISMRM consensus recommendation for PET/MRI in oncology.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Clinical performance ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018
    Article
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

10 authors.

Edwin E G W Ter VoertDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland. Edwin.terVoert@usz.ch.
Patrick Veit-HaibachDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sangtae AhnGE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY, USA.
Florian WiesingerGE Global Research, München, Germany.
M Mehdi KhalighiGE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA.
Craig S LevinDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Andrei H IagaruDepartment of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Greg ZaharchukDepartment of Radiology, Neuroradiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Martin HuellnerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gaspar DelsoGE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOur objective was to determine clinically the value of time-of-flight (TOF) information in reducing PET artifacts and improving PET image quality and accuracy in simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanning.

methodsA total 65 patients who underwent a comparative scan in a simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanner were included. TOF and non-TOF PET images were reconstructed, clinically examined, compared and scored. PET imaging artifacts were categorized as large or small implant-related artifacts, as dental implant-related artifacts, and as implant-unrelated artifacts. Differences in image quality, especially those related to (implant) artifacts, were assessed using a scale ranging from 0 (no artifact) to 4 (severe artifact).

resultsA total of 87 image artifacts were found and evaluated. Four patients had large and eight patients small implant-related artifacts, 27 patients had dental implants/fillings, and 48 patients had implant-unrelated artifacts. The average score was 1.14 ± 0.82 for non-TOF PET images and 0.53 ± 0.66 for TOF images (p < 0.01) indicating that artifacts were less noticeable when TOF information was included.

conclusionOur study indicates that PET image artifacts are significantly mitigated with integration of TOF information in simultaneous PET/MR. The impact is predominantly seen in patients with significant artifacts due to metal implants.

Indexed as

ArtifactsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultimodal ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDental ImplantsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedSignal-To-Noise RatioTime FactorsDental ImplantsArtifactsClinical researchMagnetic resonance imagingPositron emission tomographyTime-of-flight

Identifiers

PMID28124091

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.