Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35907090›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2022

Verification of the effect of acquisition time for SwiftScan on quantitative bone single-photon emission computed tomography using an anthropomorphic phantom.

Takuro Shiiba, Yuya Sekikawa, Shinji Tateoka, Nobutaka Shinohara, Yuuki Inoue, Yasuyoshi Kuroiwa, Takashi Tanaka, Yasushi Kihara, Takuroh Imamura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Takuro ShiibaDepartment of Molecular Imaging, School of Medical Sciences, Fujita Health University, 1-98, Dengakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Aichi, 470-1192, Toyoake, Japan. takuro.shiiba@fujita-hu.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5515-091X
Yuya SekikawaDepartment of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Fukuoka Medical Technology, Teikyo University, 6-22 Misakimachi, Omuta-shi, Fukuoka, 836-8505, Japan.
Shinji TateokaDepartment of Radiological Technology, Koga General Hospital, 1749-1 Sudaki, Ikeuchi-cho, Miyazaki-shi, Miyazaki, 880-0041, Japan.
Nobutaka ShinoharaDepartment of Radiological Technology, Koga General Hospital, 1749-1 Sudaki, Ikeuchi-cho, Miyazaki-shi, Miyazaki, 880-0041, Japan.
Yuuki InoueDepartment of Radiological Technology, Koga General Hospital, 1749-1 Sudaki, Ikeuchi-cho, Miyazaki-shi, Miyazaki, 880-0041, Japan.
Yasuyoshi KuroiwaDepartment of Radiological Technology, Koga General Hospital, 1749-1 Sudaki, Ikeuchi-cho, Miyazaki-shi, Miyazaki, 880-0041, Japan.
Takashi TanakaDepartment of Radiology, Koga General Hospital, 1749-1 Sudaki, Ikeuchi-cho, Miyazaki-shi, Miyazaki, 880-0041, Japan.
Yasushi KiharaDepartment of Radiology, Koga General Hospital, 1749-1 Sudaki, Ikeuchi-cho, Miyazaki-shi, Miyazaki, 880-0041, Japan.
Takuroh ImamuraDepartment of Internal Medicine, Koga General Hospital, 1749-1 Sudaki, Ikeuchi-cho, Miyazaki-shi, Miyazaki, 880-0041, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSwiftScan single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is a recently released scanning technique with data acquired when the detector is stationary and when it moves from one view to the next. The influence of scan time for using SwiftScan on quantitative bone SPECT remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify the effect of the scan time for SwiftScan SPECT on the image quality and quantification of bone SPECT compared to step and shoot mode (SSM) using MATERIALS AND

methodsPhantom SPECT/computed tomography (CT) images were acquired using Discovery NM/CT 860 (GE Healthcare) with a low-energy high-resolution sensitivity collimator. We used the fixed parameters (subsets 10 and iterations 5) for reconstruction. The coefficient of variation (CV), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), full width at half maximum (FWHM), and quantitative value of SwiftScan SPECT and SSM were compared at various acquisition times (5, 7, 17, and 32 min).

resultsIn the short-time scan (< 7 min), the CV and CNR of SwiftScan SPECT were better than those of SSM, whereas in the longtime scan (> 17 min), the CV and CNR of SwiftScan SPECT were similar to those of SSM. The FWHMs for SwiftScan SPECT (13.6-14.8 mm) and SSM (13.5-14.4 mm) were similar. The mean absolute errors of quantitative values at 5, 7, 17, and 32 min were 38.8, 38.4, 48.8, and 48.1, respectively, for SwiftScan SPECT and 41.8, 40.8%, 47.2, and 49.8, respectively, for SSM.

conclusionsSwiftScan on quantitative bone SPECT provides improved image quality in the short-time scan with quantification similar to or better than SSM. Therefore, in clinical settings, using SwiftScan SPECT instead of the SSM scan protocol in the short-time scan might provide higher-quality diagnostic images than SSM. Our results could provide vital information on the use of SwiftScan SPECT.

Indexed as

Acquisition timeBoneQuantificationSingle-photon emission computed tomographySwiftScan

Identifiers

PMID35907090
PMCPMC9339048

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.