ArticleEJNMMI research2021
Accuracy comparison of various quantitative [
Article in EJNMMI research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- SPECT/CT peak tracer uptake is a strong predictor of aseptic loosening in painful total knee arthroplasty.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Quantitative SPECT/CT: Technique and Clinical Applications.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- Proximal fragment perfusion following hip arthroplasty with subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy in cases with severe developmental dysplasia of the hip.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- EANM position paper on challenges and opportunities of full-ring 360° CZT bone imaging: it's time to let go of planar whole-body bone imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Review
- Quantification of [EJNMMI research · 2024Article
- A Prospective Comparative Study of Using Ultrasonography, 4D-CT and Parathyroid Dual-Phase Scintigraphy with SPECT in Patients with Primary Hyperparathyroidism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a need for better diagnostic tools that identify loose total hip and knee arthroplasties. Here, we present the accuracy of different
methodsQuantitative reconstruction of mineral phase SPECT data was performed using Siemens xSPECT-Quant and xSPECT-Bone, with and without metal artefact reduction (iMAR) of CT-data. Quantitative data (SUVmax values) were compared to intraoperative diagnosis or clinical outcome after at least 1 year as standard of comparison. Cut-off values and accuracies were calculated using receiver operator characteristics. Accuracy of uptake quantification was compared to the accuracy of visual SPECT/CT readings, blinded for the quantitative data and clinical outcome.
resultsIn this prospective study, 30 consecutive patients with 33 symptomatic hip and knee prostheses underwent [
conclusionQuantification with [
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.