ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation-A Review of the Literature.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone marrow metastasis from gastric cancer: A case report.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- The SPECT/CT radiomics-based classification of skeletal metastases and benign bone lesions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Differentiating between benign and malignant bone lesions: The value of using SPECT/CT.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of quantitative SPECT/CT integrated parameters for differentiating spinal tuberculosis from spinal metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Quantification in bone SPECT/CT.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2026Review
- Incremental value of quantitative SPECT/CT integrated parameters in a multimodal machine-learning model for differentiating spinal tuberculosis from pyogenic spondylitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Current Position of Nuclear Medicine Imaging in Primary Bone Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Use ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Considering the importance that quantitative molecular imaging has gained and the need for objective and reproducible image interpretation, the aim of the present review is to emphasize the benefits of performing a quantitative interpretation of single photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography (SPECT-CT) studies compared to qualitative interpretation methods in bone lesion evaluations while suggesting new directions for research on this topic. (2) Methods: By conducting comprehensive literature research, we performed an analysis of published data regarding the use of quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT in the evaluation of bone metastases. (3) Results: Several studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT in differentiating between benign and metastatic bone lesions. We collected the sensitivity and specificity for both quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT; their values ranged between 74-92% and 81-93% for quantitative bone SPECT-CT and between 60-100% and 41-100% for qualitative bone SPECT-CT. (4) Conclusions: Both qualitative and quantitative SPECT-CT present an increased potential for better differentiating between benign and metastatic bone lesions, with the latter offering additional objective information, thus increasing diagnostic accuracy and enabling the possibility of performing treatment response evaluation through accurate measurements.
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.