ReviewFrontiers in nuclear medicine2022
Normal Variants and Pitfalls of
Review in Frontiers in nuclear medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whole-Body MRI VersusCancers · 2026Article
- Navigating complex clinical decisions: kidney transplantation following abdominal aorto-aortic bypass in infantile Takayasu arteritis.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Imaging of the Skeletal System: Overview of Applications in Human and Veterinary Medicine.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Imaging insights of FDG-PET from neonates to infants.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic efficacy of [Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Pleural Uptake Patterns inJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-[fluorine-18] fluoro-2- deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) is a well-established modality that is used in adult oncologic imaging. Its use in pediatric oncology has increased over time. It enables increased diagnostic accuracy due to the combination of functional and morphologic imaging, resulting in optimal patient management. However, the clinician should be aware that the normal distribution of FDG uptake in children differs from adults. Also, even though FDG is used widely in oncology, it is not tumor specific. Uptake of FDG may be seen in numerous benign conditions, including inflammation, infection, and trauma. Proper interpretation of pediatric FDG PET/CT studies requires knowledge of the normal distribution of FDG uptake in children, and an insight into the physiologic variants, benign lesions, and PET/CT related artifacts. Understanding the potential causes of misinterpretation increases the confidence of image interpretation, reduce the number of unnecessary follow-up studies, optimize treatment and more importantly, reduce the radiation exposure to the patient. We review and discuss the physiological distribution of FDG uptake in children, the variation in distribution, lesions that are benign that could be misinterpreted as malignancy, and the various artifacts associated with PET/CT performed in pediatric oncology patients. We add a pictorial illustration to prompt understanding and familiarity of the above-mentioned patterns. Therefore, we believe that this review will assist in reducing possible mistakes by reading physicians and prevent incorrect interpretation.
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.