ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2022
Diagnostic Reference Levels for nuclear medicine imaging in Austria: A nationwide survey of used dose levels for adult patients.
Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Establishment of National Diagnostic Reference Levels 2025 for nuclear medicine in Japan.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Image quality assessment along the one metre axial field-of-view of the total-body Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT system forEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess dose levels in routine nuclear medicine (NUC) procedures in Austria as a prior to a legislative update of the National Diagnostic Reference Levels (NDRL).
methodAs part of a nationwide survey of common NUC-examinations between June 2019 and November 2019, data sets were collected from 33 Austrian hospitals with NUC equipment. All hospitals were asked to report the NUC imaging devices in use (model, type, year of manufacture, detector material, collimators), the standard protocol parameters for selected examinations (standard activity, collimator, average acquisition time, reconstruction type, use of time-of-flight) and to report data from 10 representative examinations (e.g. injected activity, weight), incl. the most common NUC-examinations for planar imaging/SPECT and PET. Median/mean values for injected activity were calculated and compared to current Austrian and international NDRL. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed comparing different variables.
resultsIn total, all 33 hospitals (100% response rate) reported data for this study for 60 SPECT devices, 21 PET/CT devices and 23 scintigraphy devices. Fixed activity values for scintigraphy/SPECT and PET were employed by about 90% and 56% of the hospitals, respectively. The most widely performed examinations for scintigraphy/SPECT are bone imaging, thyroid imaging, renal imaging (with MAG3/EC) and lung perfusion imaging (in 88% of the hospitals) and F-18 FDG-PET studies for oncology indications (in 100% of the hospitals). Significant correlations were found for patient weight and injected activity (scintigraphy/SPECT), use of iterative reconstruction and injected activity (PET) as well as size of field-of-view and injected activity (PET).
conclusionsThe reported injected activity levels were comparable to those in other countries. However, for procedures for which NDRL exist, deviations in injected activities of >20% compared to the NDRL were found. These deviations are assumed to result mainly from advances in technology but also from deviations between NDRL and prescribed activities as given in the information leaflets of the radiopharmaceuticals.
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.