ArticleEuropean radiology2021
The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the diagnostic performance of radiotracers in prostate cancer biochemical recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Long Axial Field-of-view PET: A New Era of Quantitative PET Imaging for Theranostic Applications in Clinic.PET clinics · 2025Review
- Long-axial field-of-view PET/CT improves radiomics feature reliability.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Comparison of digital and analog [Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The clinical acceptability of short versus long duration acquisitions for head and neck cancer using long-axial field-of-view PET/CT: a retrospective evaluation.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Reliability and practicability of PSMA-RADS 1.0 for structured reporting of PSMA-PET/CT scans in prostate cancer patients.European radiology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Digital versus AnalogDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Investigating the influence of long-axial versus short-axial field of view PET/CT on stage migration in lymphoma and non-small cell lung cancer.Nuclear medicine communications · 2023Article
- Potential Clinical Impact of LAFOV PET/CT: A Systematic Evaluation of Image Quality and Lesion Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Long-axial field-of-view PET/CT: perspectives and review of a revolutionary development in nuclear medicine based on clinical experience in over 7000 patients.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Review
- Assessment of malignancy and PSMA expression of uncertain bone foci in [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Assessing the accuracy of [EJNMMI research · 2022Article
- Detection Rate and Clinical Impact of PET/CT withBiomedicines · 2022Article
- Intraindividual comparison of [EJNMMI research · 2021Article
- Clinical performance of long axial field of view PET/CT: a head-to-head intra-individual comparison of the Biograph Vision Quadra with the Biograph Vision PET/CT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the impact of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty, patient-based sensitivity and interrater reliability.
methodsFour physicians retrospectively evaluated two matched cohorts of patients undergoing [
resultsdPET/CT detected more lesions than aPET/CT (p < 0.001). A higher number of pathological scans were observed for dPET/CT (83% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). The true-positive rate at follow-up was 100% for dPET/CT compared to 84% for aPET/CT (p < 0.001). The proportion of lesions rated as non-pathological as a total of all PSMA-avid lesions detected for dPET/CT was comparable to aPET/CT (61.8% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.99). Neither a higher rate of diagnostically uncertain lesions (11.5% dPET/CT vs. 13.7% aPET/CT, p = 0.95) nor discrepant scans (where one or more readers differed in opinion as to whether the scan is pathological) were observed (18% dPET/CT vs. 17% aPET/CT, p = 0.76). Interrater reliability for pathological lesions was excellent for both scanner types (Cronbach's α = 0.923 dPET/CT; α = 0.948 aPET/CT) and interrater agreement was substantial for dPET/CT (Krippendorf's α = 0.701) and almost perfect in aPET/CT (α = 0.802).
conclusionsA higher detection rate for pathological lesions for dPET/CT compared with aPET/CT in multiple readers was observed. This improved sensitivity was coupled with an improved true-positive rate and was not associated with increased diagnostic uncertainty, rate of non-specific lesions, or reduced interrater reliability. KEY POINTS: • New generation digital scanners detect more cancer lesions in men with prostate cancer. • When using digital scanners, the doctors are able to diagnose prostate cancer lesions with better certainty • When using digital scanners, the doctors do not disagree with each other more than with other scanner types.
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.