ArticleEJNMMI research2019
Updating PET/CT performance standards and PET/CT interpretation criteria should go hand in hand.
Article in EJNMMI research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigate the quantification accuracy of small lesions in oncologicalBMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance Comparison of a Long Versus a Short Axial Field-of-View PET/CT Using EARL-Compliant Reconstructions.Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Article
- Enhancing Interoperability and Harmonisation of Nuclear Medicine Image Data and Associated Clinical Data.Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- Common carotid segmentation inClinical physiology and functional imaging · 2023Article
- Reproducibility of [18F]FDG PET/CT liver SUV as reference or normalisation factor.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Deep progressive learning achieves whole-body low-doseEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- EARL compliance and imaging optimisation on the Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT using phantom and clinical data.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This letter aims at explaining that adjusting the performance of PET/CT systems to a new standard also requires updating of interpretation criteria. Simply changing one aspect of the imaging procedure, i.e., PET/CT performance and image quality, and not adapting interpretation criteria will result in an increase of false positive (or negative) reads.
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.