ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
A multicentre simulation study of planar whole-body bone scintigraphy in Sweden.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigation of the minimum uptake time for quantitative jawbone SPECT.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Deep learning model using planar whole-body bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of skull base invasion in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
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 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhole-body bone scintigraphy is a clinically useful non-invasive and highly sensitive imaging method enabling detection of metabolic changes at an early stage of disease, often earlier than with conventional radiologic procedures. Bone scintigraphy is one of the most common nuclear medicine methods used worldwide. Therefore, it is important that the examination is implemented and performed in an optimal manner giving the patient added value in the subsequent care process. The aim of this national multicentre survey was to investigate Swedish nuclear medicine departments compliance with European practice guidelines for bone scintigraphy. In addition, the effect of image acquisition parameters on the ability to detect metabolic lesions was investigated.
methodsTwenty-five hospital sites participated in the study. The SIMIND Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and the XCAT phantom were used to simulate ten fictive patient cases with increased metabolic activity distributed at ten different locations in the skeleton. The intensity of the metabolic activity was set into six different levels. Individual simulations were performed for each site, corresponding to their specific camera system and acquisition parameters. Simulated image data sets were then sent to each site and were visually evaluated in terms of if there was one or several locations with increased metabolic activity relative to normal activity.
resultThere is a high compliance in Sweden with the EANM guidelines regarding image acquisition parameters for whole-body bone scintigraphy. However, up to 40% of the participating sites acquire lower count density in the images than recommended. Despite this, the image quality was adequate to maintain a stable detection level. None of the hospital sites or individual responders deviated according to the statistical analysis. There is a need for at least 2.5 times metabolic activity compared to normal for a lesion to be detected.
conclusionThe imaging process is well harmonized throughout the country and there is a high compliance with the EANM guidelines. There is a need for at least 2.5 times the normal metabolic activity for a lesion to be detected as abnormal.
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.