ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2020
Comparison of Image Quality and Semi-quantitative Measurements with Digital PET/CT and Standard PET/CT from Different Vendors.
Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing small-lesion detectability and acquisition time optimisation in silicon-detector-Based PET: a phantom study.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Comparative study of physiological FDG uptake in small structures between silicon photomultiplier-based PET and conventional PET.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- Assessment of Image Quality and Lesion Detectability With Digital PET/CT System.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the concordance and equivalence of results between the newly acquired digital PET/CT(dPET) and the standard PET/CT (sPET) to investigate possible differences in visual and semi-quantitative analyses.
methodsA total of 30 participants were enrolled and underwent a single
resultsThe dPET identified 4 additional
conclusionsThe dPET provides improved image quality and lesion detectability than the sPET. The semi-quantitative values of the two PET/CT systems of different vendors are comparable. This pilot study will be an important basis for possible interchangeable use of either system in clinical practice.
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.