ArticleEJNMMI physics2017
Accuracy and precision assessment for activity quantification in individualized dosimetry of
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative SPECT/CT: Technique and Clinical Applications.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- Tailored Reaction Conditions and Automated Radiolabeling of [International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Count-rate management inEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Targeted radioligand therapy: physics and biology, internal dosimetry and other practical aspects duringTheranostics · 2025Review
- Evolution of dosimetric parameters through PRRT and potential impact on clinical practice: data from the prospective phase II LUMEN study.EJNMMI research · 2024Article
- Comparison of a 3D CZT and conventional SPECT/CT system for quantitative Lu-177 SPECT imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Activity quantification and dosimetry in radiopharmaceutical therapy with reference toFrontiers in nuclear medicine · 2024Review
- QuantitativeEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Simplified dosimetry for kidneys and tumors inEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Uncertainty analysis of tumour absorbed dose calculations in molecular radiotherapy.EJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Comparison of commercial dosimetric software platforms in patients treated withMedical physics · 2020Article
- Impact of dead time on quantitativeEJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Comprehensive SPECT/CT system characterization and calibration forEJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Implementation of patient dosimetry in the clinical practice after targeted radiotherapy using [EJNMMI research · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to obtain a reliable
resultsFor the radionuclide calibrator, median [interquartile range] for the error on activity measurement was -0.99 [1.31] %. The optimal SPECT reconstruction parameters were obtained with 16 iterations, 16 subsets and a 12-mm Gaussian post-filter. The calibration factor was 9.87 cps/MBq with an error of -1.05 [2.12] %. The well counter was calibrated with 31.5 cps/kBq, and the error was evaluated to -12.89 [16.55] %.
conclusionsThe accuracy and the precision of activity quantification using dedicated quality control were found to be sufficient for use in dosimetry implemented in clinical routine. The proposed methodology could be implemented in other centres to obtain reproducible
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.