ArticleEJNMMI research2020
Optimization of PET protocol and interrater reliability of
Article in EJNMMI research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03573011 (PSMA-PET/CT for Prostate Cancer - Phase 2 Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
PSMA-PET/CT for Prostate Cancer - Phase 2 Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of urinary bladder activity from [EJNMMI reports · 2026Article
- Future opportunities and nuances with the use of PSMA PET in prostate cancer (MD PET 1).Theranostics · 2026Review
- Revolutionizing Prostate Cancer Detection: The Role of Approved PSMA-PET Imaging Agents.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer diagnosis: current applications and future directions.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Comparison of early and standardAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- Preclinical comparative study of [Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The future of PSMA PET and WB MRI as next-generation imaging tools in prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- The aluminium-[EJNMMI radiopharmacy and chemistry · 2021Review
- Intra-individual dynamic comparison ofScientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral scan parameters for PET imaging with
resultsThe 4 MBq/kg group received for all reconstructed images (60 min p.i., 1.5 and 3 min/bed position and 180 min p.i., 1.5 and 3 min/bed position) the highest median image quality score compared to the 2 MBq/kg group (p values < 0.01). When comparing all reconstructed images, the highest image quality score was given to images at 60 min p.i., 3 min/bed position for both dosage groups (score 5 and 6 for 2 and 4 MBq/kg, respectively). The addition of furosemide administration decreased the interference score with one point (p = 0.01106) and facilitated the evaluation of lesions in proximity to the ureters. The interrater reliability for the comparison of each lesion separately after more than 40
conclusionAlthough the results indicate an administered activity of 4.0 ± 0.4 MBq/kg, preference will be given to 2.0 ± 0.2 MBq/kg due to the small difference in absolute score (max 1 point) and the ALARA principle. For evaluation of lesions in proximity to the ureters, the co-administration of a diuretic can be useful. The increase of the κ value from 0.78 to 0.94 suggests a learning curve in the interpretation of
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT03573011. Retrospectively registered 28 June 2018.
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.