ArticleEJNMMI physics2020
Evaluation of PET quantitation accuracy among multiple discovery IQ PET/CT systems via NEMA image quality test.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2020. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Q.Clear reconstruction shortening the scanning time forEJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Insertion of synthetic lesions on patient data: a method for evaluating clinical performance differences between PET systems.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Variability in PET image quality and quantification measured with a permanently filledEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Optimal clinical protocols for total-body 18F-FDG PET/CT examination under different activity administration plans.EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Development of scalable lymphatic system in the 4D XCAT phantom: Application to quantitative evaluation of lymphoma PET segmentations.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a method based on synthetic data inserted into raw data prior to reconstruction for the assessment of PET scanners.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Impact of the Q.Clear reconstruction algorithm on the interpretation of PET/CT images in patients with lymphoma.EJNMMI research · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionQuantitative imaging biomarkers are becoming usual in oncology for assessing therapy response. The harmonization of image quantitation reporting has become of utmost importance due to the multi-center trials increase. The NEMA image quality test is often considered for the evaluation of quantitation and is more accurate with a radioactive solid phantom that reduces variability. The goal of this project is to determine the level of variability among imaging centers if acquisition and imaging protocol parameters are left to the center's preference while all other parameters are fixed including the scanner type.
methodsA NEMA-IQ phantom filled with radioactive
resultsThe data using the
conclusionThe same PET system type from the various sites produced similar quantitative results, despite allowing each site to choose their clinical protocols with no restriction on data acquisition and reconstruction parameters. BSREM leads to lower dispersion of quantitative data among different sites. A solid radioactive phantom may be recommended to qualify the sites to perform quantitative imaging.
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.