Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36100369›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2024

Charlotte Donzé, Léa Rubira, Lore Santoro, Malissone Viarasakd, Pierre Olivier Kotzki, Emmanuel Deshayes, Cyril Fersing

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte DonzéNuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Léa RubiraNuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Lore SantoroNuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Malissone ViarasakdNuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Pierre Olivier KotzkiNuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Emmanuel DeshayesNuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Cyril FersingNuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France cyril.fersing@icm.unicancer.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-4455-4641
Université de Montpellier · FRInserm · FRÉcole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Montpellier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives

methodsTwo infusion methods were studied, either involving a volumetric infusion pump (method 1) or a peristaltic pump (method 2). For each method, the mean residual activity per vial and the mean injection time were compared. Occupational radiation exposure was measured. The cost of initial equipment and consumables for one administration was determined. Feedback from operators and past incidents during injections were collected through a survey.

resultsThree operators performed 219 Lutathera injections over 70 months: 60.7% (133) with method 1 and 39.3% (86) with method 2. After infusion, the mean residual activity in vial was 124.3±16.9 MBq with method 1 and 80.9±19.3 MBq with method 2 (34.9% decrease). The average administration time was 41±7.2 min with method 1 and 39±8.5 min with method 2. Occupational exposures obtained with both methods were very low and quite similar. Method 1 required an initial investment of 1165.8 US$ plus 4.0 US$ of supplies for each administration. Initial investment for method 2 was comparable (1261.4 US$) but supplies cost per administration was higher (12.5 US$). Two major incidents were recorded with method 1 and none with method 2. From operators' experience, method 2 felt safer and more suitable.

conclusionsMethod 2 appeared to be convenient and secure, despite a higher cost per injection. It could also be applied to new radioligand therapies such as

Indexed as

Infusion PumpsNeuroendocrine TumorsOccupational ExposureOctreotideOrganometallic CompoundsHumansInfusions, IntravenousRadiation ExposureRadiopharmaceuticalslutetium Lu 177 dotatateOctreotideOrganometallic CompoundsRadiopharmaceuticalsantineoplastic agentsdrug administration routesnuclear medicinequality of health caresafety

Identifiers

PMID36100369
PMCPMC11042268
OpenAlexW4295755821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.