ArticleMedicine2018
An account of data entry inconsistencies and their impact on positron emission tomography quantification.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducibility is essential to clinical application of positron emission tomography (PET) quantification. Human lapses in data registration and protocol compliance are pervasive sources of intrasite quantification variability. Although rarely assessed or reported, these lapses are ultimately a limitation to harmonization in multicenter clinical trials. A comprehensive account of their possible extent is relayed here.This is a retrospective audit of errors in manual registration of study parameters and in protocol adherence across a sample of in-center research projects over one year (201 patients, 222 PET/CT scans). Discrepancies in patient height and weight; tracer type; dose; injection; and scan times were listed. Correspondent variances in standardized uptake values (SUVs) normalized by body weight, SUV (BW), and body surface area, SUV (BSA), were assessed.Manual misregistrations totalled 41.8%. These were mainly small, but with a few large deviations, and most significant in weight (range: -1-100 kg) and dose (-19 to 12 MBq). Errors were more frequent and generally larger in non-routine studies. This also applied to protocol compliance. A 50.7% noncompliance was found with significant deviations in dose (-106 to 208 MBq) and especially in early scan uptake times (-37 to 54 min). Although misregistrations did not overall translate into significant SUV variability, noncompliance did. These errors contributed a factor 0.02 to 1.45 and 0.71 to 3.09 SUV (BW) change, respectively. SUV (BSA) saw a significant 21% to 22% decrease with mistyped height and weight.Inconsistency was frequent but less prominent in data entry than in protocol compliance. As both caused some substantial SUV variances, intra-site assessments and data checking are required for clinical trials.
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.