ReviewSeminars in nuclear medicine2021
Pitfalls on PET/CT Due to Artifacts and Instrumentation.
Review in Seminars in nuclear medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coronary artery disease imaging with total-body PET.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Personalised Dosimetry in Nuclear Medicine: Bridging Physics, Biology and AI for Next Generation Radiopharmaceutical Therapy.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Article
- Diagnostic Challenges and Modern Therapeutic Strategies in Giant Cell Arteritis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hypoxia Imaging in Lung Cancer: A PET-Based Narrative Review for Clinicians and Researchers.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Ultra-low-dose CT for attenuation correction: dose savings and effect on PET quantification for protocols with and without tin filter.EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Image Quality and Quantitative PET Parameters of Low-Dose [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- F-18 FDG PET/CT Imaging in Normal Variants, Pitfalls and Artifacts in the Abdomen and Pelvis.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PET/CT has become a preferred imaging modality over PET-only scanners in clinical practice. However, along with the significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy and patient throughput, pitfalls on PET/CT are reported as well. This review provides a general overview on the potential influence of the limitations with respect to PET/CT instrumentation and artifacts associated with the modality integration on the image appearance and quantitative accuracy of PET. Approaches proposed in literature to address the limitations or minimize the artifacts are discussed as well as their current challenges for clinical applications. Although the CT component can play an important role in assisting clinical diagnosis, we concentrate on the imaging scenarios where CT is used to provide auxiliary information for attenuation compensation and scatter correction in PET.
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.