ReviewLa Radiologia medica2019
Radiation dose in nuclear medicine: the hybrid imaging.
Review in La Radiologia medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiopharmaceuticals for PET and SPECT Imaging: A Literature Review over the Last Decade.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Instrumentation Digital Twins in PET and SPECT Imaging: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Directions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Comparative Performance ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Association of epicardial fat volume with subclinical myocardial damage in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- The prognostic role of next-generation imaging-driven upstaging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Recent advances in positron emission tomography for detecting early fibrosis after myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of Digital versus AnalogDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Study of CT-derived Radiation Dose Calculation in Lung Q-SPECT/CT Imaging.Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2023Article
- Ultrasound Sonosensitizers for Tumor Sonodynamic Therapy and Imaging: A New Direction with Clinical Translation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the radiation dose of computed tomography in hybrid nuclear medicine imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2023Review
- Role of 18F-FDG PET-CT in Pre-Operative Planning of Surgical Debridement in Chronic Osteomyelitis.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Review
- Recent development of contrast agents for magnetic resonance and multimodal imaging of glioblastoma.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- Whole-body MRI-based multivariate prediction model in the assessment of bone metastasis in prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Awareness of radiation hazards in patients attending radiology departments.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2021Article
- [Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- On the optimization of bone SPECT/CT in terms of image quality and radiation dose.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Best practice for the nuclear medicine technologist in CT-based attenuation correction and calcium score for nuclear cardiology.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2020Review
- Objective response rate assessment in oncology: Current situation and future expectations.World journal of clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Editorial from guest editors current Euratom legislation (DE 59/2013): new patient management in radiation protection.La Radiologia medica · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hybrid imaging procedures such as single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) showed a rapid diffusion in recent years because of their high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, due to a more accurate localization and definition of scintigraphic findings. However, hybrid systems inevitably lead to an increase in patient radiation exposure because of the added CT component. Effective doses due to the radiopharmaceuticals can be estimated by multiplying the administered activities by the effective dose coefficients, while for the CT component the dose-length product can be multiplied by a conversion coefficient k. However, the effective dose value is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and must be interpreted as a broad, generic estimate of biologic risk. Although the effective dose can be used to estimate and compare the risk of radiation exposure across multiple imaging techniques, clinicians should be aware that it represents a generic evaluation of the risk derived from a given procedure to a generic model of the human body. It cannot be applied to a single individual and should not be used for epidemiologic studies or the estimation of population risks due to the inherent uncertainties and oversimplifications involved. Practical ways to reduce radiation dose to patients eligible for hybrid imaging involve adjustments to both the planning phase and throughout the execution of the study. These methods include individual justification of radiation exposure, radiopharmaceutical choice, adherence to diagnostic reference levels (DLR), patient hydration and bladder voiding, adoption of new technical devices (sensitive detectors or collimators) with new reconstruction algorithms, and implementation of appropriate CT protocols and exposure parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30771217What 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.