ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Preliminary protocol for measuring the reproducibility and accuracy of flow values on digital PET/CT systems in [
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundSeveral factors may decrease the accuracy of quantitative PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). It is therefore essential to ensure that myocardial blood flow (MBF) values are reproducible and accurate, and to design systematic protocols to achieve this. Until now, no systematic phantom protocols have been available to assess the technical factors affecting measurement accuracy and reproducibility in MPI. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe implemented a standard measurement protocol, which applies a flow phantom in order to compare image-derived flow values with respect to a ground truth flow value with [
resultsThe measurements performed on the DMI-20 system produced Qin and Qout values corresponging to each other as well as to the reference flow value across all test-retest measurements. The repeatability differences on DMI-20 were 2.1% ± 2.6% and 3.3% ± 4.1% for Qin and Qout, respectively. On Vision-600 they were 10% ± 8.4% and 11% ± 10% for Qin and Qout, respectively. The measurements performed on the Vision-600 system showed more variation between Qin and Qout values across test-retest measurements and exceeded 15% difference in 7/24 of the measurements.
conclusionsA preliminary protocol for measuring the accuracy and reproducibility of flow values in [
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.