Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28612079›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2017

The potential of

Iain Murray, Sarah J Chittenden, Ana M Denis-Bacelar, Cecilia Hindorf, Christopher C Parker, Sue Chua, Glenn D Flux

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
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 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Whole-Body [Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2021
    Trial
  3. BaselineClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Projection-Domain Low-Count Quantitative SPECT Method forIEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  11. A Primer on Radiopharmaceutical Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2023
    Review
  12. Milestones in dosimetry for nuclear medicine therapy.The British journal of radiology · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Why bother with alpha particles?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Article
  16. Dosimetry in Clinical Radiopharmaceutical Therapy of Cancer: Practicality Versus Perfection in Current Practice.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Iain MurrayJoint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Rd., Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK. iain.murray@icr.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8217-5810
Sarah J ChittendenJoint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Rd., Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
Ana M Denis-BacelarJoint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Rd., Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
Cecilia HindorfJoint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Rd., Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
Christopher C ParkerDepartment of Urology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.
Sue ChuaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.
Glenn D FluxJoint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Rd., Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aims of this study were to calculate bone lesion absorbed doses resulting from a weight-based administration of

methodsFive patients received two intravenous injections of

resultsAbsorbed doses to metastatic bone lesions ranged from 0.6 Gy to 44.1 Gy. For individual patients, there was an average factor difference of 5.3 (range 2.5-11.0) between the maximum and minimum lesion dose. A relationship between lesion-absorbed doses and serial changes in

conclusionsThere is both inter-patient and intra-patient heterogeneity of absorbed dose estimates to metastatic lesions. A relationship between

Indexed as

AgedClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicFluorine RadioisotopesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantRadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticalsRadiumFluorine RadioisotopesRadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticalsRadiumRadium-223radium Ra 223 dichloride18F223RaAbsorbed doseAlpha emitter-FluorideRadiumTreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID28612079
PMCPMC6175045
OpenAlexW2626822213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.