ArticleEJNMMI research2017
Carotid atherosclerotic plaques standardised uptake values: software challenges and reproducibility.
Article in EJNMMI research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of carotid atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability with multi-radiotracer PET/CT: a scoping review.European radiology · 2026Article
- Beyond morphology: multi-radiotracer PET/CT for comprehensive assessment of carotid plaque risk.European radiology · 2026Article
- Association Between 18-FDG Positron Emission Tomography and MRI Biomarkers of Plaque Vulnerability in Patients With Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Article
- Response to letter re: Carotid atherosclerotic plaques standardized uptake values: methodological issues on reproducibility and accuracy.EJNMMI research · 2017Article
- Carotid atherosclerotic plaques standardized uptake values: methodological issues on reproducibility and accuracy.EJNMMI research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPositron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) carotid standardised uptake values (SUV) of
resultsStatistically significant differences in SUV measurements, between the two software packages, ranging from 9 to 21.8% were found depending on ROI location. In 79% (n = 23) of the ROI locations, the differences between the SUV measurements from each software package were found to be statistically significant. The time taken to perform the analyses and export data from the software packages also varied considerably.
conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of standardising all aspects of methodological approaches to ensure accuracy and reproducibility. Physicians must be aware that when a PET-CT data set is analysed, subsequent follow-ups must be verified, if possible, with the same software package or cross-calibration between packages should be performed.
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.