ArticleEJNMMI physics2023
Individualisation of radiation protection recommendations for patients treated with [
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiation exposure to families of patients following administration ofEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs for any other nuclear medicine treatment, patients treated with [
methodsThe whole-body time-activity curve was calculated for 20 patients from dose-rate measurements performed during the first week post-administration. An effective decay time [Formula: see text] was calculated from a mono-exponential fit performed with the 6 h and 24 h measurements and compared with the effective decay time [Formula: see text] obtained from the mono-exponential fit performed with the 24 h, 48 h and 168 h measurements. The differences between them were calculated and the 95th percentile of these differences was used as a correction factor for [Formula: see text]. A modified effective decay [Formula: see text] was obtained by adding the correction factor to [Formula: see text] and the restriction periods for each patient was calculated. The whole body activity washout between the first and the fourth treatment cycles of 16 patients was also compared.
resultsThe comparison of the whole-body activity curves between the first and the fourth cycle of the treatment for 16 patients would indicate that the recommendations on radiation protection determined from the first cycle could reasonably be used for the remaining cycles in most patients. The values of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] obtained for the 20 patients were significantly different. The 95th percentile of the differences between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] was 46 h, which is thus the time to be added to [Formula: see text] so as to determine the restriction periods.
conclusionsThe proposed method makes it possible to calculate the restriction periods for patients treated with [
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.