ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019
Diagnostic Reference Levels for Adult Nuclear Medicine Imaging Established from the National Survey in Korea.
Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing the Diagnostic Reference Levels for Common Dubai Health Adult Nuclear Medicine Examinations.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic reference level, achievable dose, and effective dose estimation in adult hybrid SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in Institut Jantung Negara.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Radiation Dose Assessment for Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: A Single Institution Survey.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Reference Levels for nuclear medicine imaging in Austria: A nationwide survey of used dose levels for adult patients.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2022Article
- Simultaneous effect of gamma and Wi-Fi radiation on gamma-H2Ax expression in peripheral blood of rat: A radio-protection note.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is substantial need for optimizing radiation protection in nuclear medicine imaging studies. However, the diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have not yet been established for nuclear medicine imaging studies in Korea. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe data of administered activity in 32 nuclear medicine imaging studies were collected from the Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine (KSNM) dose survey database from 2013 and 2014. Through the expert discussions and statistical analyses, the 75th quartile value (Q3) was suggested as the preliminary DRL values. Preliminary DRLs were subjected to approval process by the KSNM Board of Directors and KSNM Council, followed by clinical applications and performance rating by domestic institutes.
resultsDRLs were determined through 32 nuclear medicine imaging studies. The Q3 value was considered as appropriate selection as it was generally consistent with the most commonly administered activity. In the present study, the final version of initial DRL values for nuclear medicine imaging in Korean adults is described including various protocols of the brain and myocardial perfusion imaging.
conclusionThe first DRLs for nuclear medicine imaging in Korean adults were confirmed. The DRLs will enable optimized radiation protection in the field of nuclear medicine imaging in Korea.
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.