ArticleEJNMMI physics2021
Optimisation of CT protocols in PET-CT across different scanner models using different automatic exposure control methods and iterative reconstruction algorithms.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative CT reconstruction kernel harmonization for multi-site lung cancer screening.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Recent Breakthroughs in PET-CT Multimodality Imaging: Innovations and Clinical Impact.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- EANM procedural recommendations for managing the paediatric patient in diagnostic nuclear medicine.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Review
- Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA significant proportion of the radiation dose from a PET-CT examination is dependent on the CT protocol, which should be optimised for clinical purposes. Matching protocols on different scanners within an imaging centre is important for the consistency of image quality and dose. This paper describes our experience translating low-dose CT protocols between scanner models utilising different automatic exposure control (AEC) methods and reconstruction algorithms.
methodsThe scanners investigated were a newly installed Siemens Biograph mCT PET with 64-slice SOMATOM Definition AS CT using sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) and two GE Discovery 710 PET scanners with 128-slice Optima 660 CT using adaptive statistical reconstruction (ASiR). Following exploratory phantom work, 33 adult patients of various sizes were scanned using the Siemens scanner and matched to patients scanned using our established GE protocol to give 33 patient pairs. A comparison of volumetric CT dose index (CTDI
resultsIn the first matched patient study, the mean percentage difference in CTDI
conclusionsGiven the different implementations of acquisition parameters and reconstruction algorithms between vendors, careful consideration is required to ensure optimisation and standardisation of protocols.
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.