Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37322376›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2023

Variability in PET image quality and quantification measured with a permanently filled

O Sipilä, J Liukkonen, H-L Halme, T Tolvanen, A Sohlberg, M Hakulinen, A-L Manninen, K Tahvanainen, V Tunninen, T Ollikainen and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 81% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

O SipiläHUS Diagnostic Center, Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, P. O. Box 442, 00029, Helsinki, Finland. outi.sipila@hus.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-2471-8820
J LiukkonenRadiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Vantaa, Finland.
H-L HalmeHUS Diagnostic Center, Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, P. O. Box 442, 00029, Helsinki, Finland.
T TolvanenTurku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
A SohlbergDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti, Finland.
M HakulinenDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Diagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
A-L ManninenOYS Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
K TahvanainenHUS Diagnostic Center, Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, P. O. Box 442, 00029, Helsinki, Finland.
V TunninenDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Satakunta Central Hospital, Pori, Finland.
T OllikainenClinical Physiology and Neurophysiology, North Karelia Central Hospital, Joensuu, Finland.
T KangasmaaDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Vaasa Central Hospital, Wellbeing Services County of Ostrobothnia, Vaasa, Finland.
A KangasmäkiDepartment of Imaging and Radiotherapy, Docrates Cancer Center, Helsinki, Finland.
J VuorelaClinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Central Finland Health Care District, Jyväskylä, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FICentral Finland Health Care District · FIDocrates Cancer Center · FINorth Karelia Central Hospital · FIOulu University Hospital · FIPäijät-Hämeen Keskussairaala · FIRadiation and Nuclear Safety Authority · FISatakunta Central Hospital · FITurku University Hospital · FIUniversity of Eastern Finland · FIVaasa Central Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study evaluated, as a snapshot, the variability in quantification and image quality (IQ) of the clinically utilized PET [

methodsThe phantom was imaged on 14 PET-CT scanners, including a variety of models from two major vendors. The variability of the recovery coefficients (RC

resultsThe largest variability in RC values of the routine protocols was found for the RC

conclusionThe maximum variability of the RC values for the [

Indexed as

68Ge NEMA/IEC phantomImage qualityPET-CTRecovery coefficient

Identifiers

PMID37322376
PMCPMC10271973
OpenAlexW4380852904

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.