Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34807325›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2021

Comparison of [18F] NaF PET/CT dynamic analysis methods and a static analysis method including derivation of a semi-population input function for site-specific measurements of bone formation in a population with chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder.

M H Vrist, J N Bech, T G Lauridsen, C A Fynbo, J Theil

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Validation of quantitative [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Emerging Role ofPET clinics · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M H VristUniversity Clinic in Nephrology and Hypertension, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark. marvri@rm.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5556-0078
J N BechUniversity Clinic in Nephrology and Hypertension, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0605-1277
T G LauridsenDepartment of Nephology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
C A FynboDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2490-5491
J TheilDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9211-9900
Aarhus University · DKAalborg University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare dynamic and static whole-body (WB) [

methodsSeventeen patients with CKD-MBD underwent a 60-min dynamic scan followed by a 30-min static WB scan. Tracer kinetics in four thoracic vertebrae were analysed using nonlinear regression and Patlak analysis using image-derived arterial input functions. The static WB scan was analysed using a simplified Patlak method requiring only a single data point in combination with a fixed y-intercept value (V

resultsBone plasma clearance (K

conclusionBone plasma clearance measured from static WB scans correlates with clearance data measured by dynamic analysis. Static [18F]NaF PET/CT scans can be applied in future studies to measure K

Indexed as

CKD-MBDHawkinsNaFPatlakPET/CTSemi-population input function

Identifiers

PMID34807325
PMCPMC8609091
OpenAlexW3215001721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.