ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Characterization of continuous bed motion effects on patient breathing and respiratory motion correction in PET/CT imaging.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Breakthroughs in PET-CT Multimodality Imaging: Innovations and Clinical Impact.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Application of Medical Image Navigation Technology in Minimally Invasive Puncture Robot.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Continuous bed motion (CBM) was recently introduced as an alternative to step-and-shoot (SS) mode for PET/CT data acquisition. In CBM, the patient is continuously advanced into the scanner at a preset speed, whereas in SS, the patient is imaged in overlapping bed positions. Previous investigations have shown that patients preferred CBM over SS for PET data acquisition. In this study, we investigated the effect of CBM versus SS on patient breathing and respiratory motion correction. One hundred patients referred for PET/CT were scanned using a Siemens mCT scanner. Patient respiratory waveforms were recorded using an Anzai system and analyzed using four methods: Methods 1 and 2 measured the coefficient of variation (COV) of the respiratory cycle duration (RCD) and amplitude (RCA). Method 3 measured the respiratory frequency signal prominence (RSP) and method 4 measured the width of the HDChest optimal gate (OG) window when using a 35% duty cycle. Waveform analysis was performed over the abdominothoracic region which exhibited the greatest respiratory motion and the results were compared between CBM and SS. Respiratory motion correction was assessed by comparing the ratios of SUVmax, SUVpeak, and CNR of focal FDG uptake, as well as Radiologists' visual assessment of corresponding image quality of motion corrected and uncorrected images for both acquisition modes. The respiratory waveforms analysis showed that the RCD and RCA COV were 3.7% and 33.3% lower for CBM compared to SS, respectively, while the RSP and OG were 30.5% and 2.0% higher, respectively. Image analysis on the other hand showed that SUVmax, SUVpeak, and CNR were 8.5%, 4.5%, and 3.4% higher for SS compared to CBM, respectively, while the Radiologists' visual comparison showed similar image quality between acquisition modes. However, none of the results showed statistically significant differences between SS and CBM, suggesting that motion correction is not impacted by acquisition mode.
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.