ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2024
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.
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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of Gravity Infusion Protocols forPharmaceutics · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.