ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Dynamic PET/CT scan of
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Performance ofNPJ breast cancer · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in fracture detection on radiographs: a literature review.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Performances of PET/CT Using Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitors in Patients with Primary and Metastatic Liver Tumors: A Comprehensive Literature Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Feasibility of a deep learning algorithm to achieve the low-doseThe British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Combining serum AFP and CEUS LI-RADS for better diagnostic performance in Chinese high-risk patients.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDynamic PET/CT scan of
methodsTwenty-two patients with lesions confirmed by CT or MRI were performed with dynamic
resultsSUV of normal organs decreased rapidly from 10 to 30 min and decreased gradually from 30 to 60 min. Besides, the uterus showed a particularly high uptake in all patients (12.62 ± 4.58 at 10 min p.i., 12.04 ± 3.99 at 30 min p.i., 10.92 ± 2.38 at 60 min p.i.). SUV of lesions decreased gradually, while TBR increased from 10- to 60-min post-injection. Visual analysis verified a comparable lesion detectability of 30 min and 60 min with images of 10 min showing a decreased lesion detection number.
conclusionThis study revealed that similar detection rates were achieved at both 30 and 60 min, suggesting a static scan at 30 min to be appropriate in the clinic. Besides, although with high lesion uptake, early
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.