ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018
Multicenter survey of PET/CT protocol parameters that affect standardized uptake values.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commercially Competitive Vendor-Agnostic Image Reconstruction Could Be a Leap Forward for PET Harmonization.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022Article
- Simultaneous Estimation of Bias and Resolution in PET Images With a Long-Lived "Pocket" Phantom System.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 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.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials that evaluate cancer treatments may benefit from positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, which for many cancers can discriminate between effective and ineffective treatments. However, the image metrics used to quantify disease and evaluate treatment may be biased by many factors related to clinical protocols and PET system settings, many of which are site- and/or manufacturer-specific. An observational study was conducted using two surveys that were designed to record key sources of bias and variability in PET imaging. These were distributed to hospitals across the United States. The first round of surveys was designed and distributed by the American College of Radiology's Centers of Quantitative Imaging Excellence program in 2011. The second survey expanded on the first and was completed by the National Cancer Institute's Quantitative Imaging Network. Sixty-three sites responded to the first survey and 36 to the second. Key imaging parameters varied across participating sites. The range of reported methods for image acquisition and reconstruction suggests that signal biases are not matched between sites. Patient preparation was also inconsistent, potentially contributing additional variability. For multicenter clinical trials, efforts to control biases through standardization of imaging procedures should precede patient measurements.
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.