ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2022
Inferences of SPECT renal dynamic imaging injection quality based on lung and abdominal aorta imaging features.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Calibration and prediction of results after failed injection in SPECT renal dynamic imaging.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the characteristics of blood flow perfusion images at different injection levels to establish an evaluation standard for renal dynamic imaging injection quality and reduce misdiagnosis.
methodsData from 140 single-photon emission computed tomography renal dynamic imaging, collected in our hospital, were retrospectively analyzed. The scans were divided into four groups according to the injection quality: total leakage of the imaging agent (group A), partial leakage (group B), poor bolus injection quality (group C), and good bolus injection quality (group D). The time of appearance and regression of the pulmonary blood perfusion phase, the peak time in the abdominal aorta, and the ratio between peak count and actual drug injection count were analyzed. The renal dynamic imaging was repeated in low-quality examinations, and the comparison between the two exams provided the misdiagnosis rate caused by inadequate injections.
resultsThe images of the lungs and abdominal aorta in group A were blurred and indistinguishable; thus, these exams were unreliable. Both appearance and fading time of the bilateral lung shadows were significantly different between groups B, C, and D (p = 0.002 and p = 0.003, respectively). The peak time and peak counting ratio in the abdominal aorta were also significantly different between these groups (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). The misdiagnosis rates of renal dynamic imaging in groups A, B, and C due to the different injection levels were significantly different at 94.29%, 77.14%, and 18.29%, respectively.
conclusionsThe times of appearance and regression of the lung shadows and the peak time and peak count ratio in the abdominal aorta in the dynamic renal imaging perfusion phase can help assess the imaging agent injection quality and identify the need for a repeated examination. Improving the imaging agent injection quality can effectively reduce the renal function misdiagnosis rate.
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.