ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
An international phantom study of inter-site variability in Technetium-99m image quantification: analyses from the TARGET radioembolization study.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel approach to radioembolization treatment planning using a hybrid [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Predictive value of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonalised multi-compartment dosimetry based on [
resultsRegarding the LSF, inter-site variation with planar site-specific protocols was minimal, as determined by comparing computed LSF between sites (interquartile range 9.6-10.1%). A standardised protocol did not improve variation (interquartile range 8.4-9.0%) but did improve mean accuracy compared to the site-specific protocols (5.0% error for standardised protocol vs 8.8% error for site-specific protocols). Regarding the CRC, inter-system variation was notable for site-specific SPECT protocols and could not be improved by the standardised protocol (CRC interquartile range for 37 mm sphere 0.5-0.7 and 0.6-0.8 respectively), however the standardised protocol did improve accuracy of sphere:background determination. Implementation of key image corrections did improve inter-site variation (CRC interquartile range for 37 mm sphere 0.6-0.7).
conclusionEliminating sources of variability in image corrections between imaging protocols reduces inter-site variation in quantification. A standardised protocol was not able to improve consistency of LSF or CRC but was able to improve accuracy.
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.