ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2025
Comparison of early and standard
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2025. 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.
- Clinical performance 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-time-point
methodsTwenty treatment-naïve patients with histology-proven PCa who underwent
resultsLesion detection was consistent at both 30 and 60-min p.i. imaging of 20 patients (mean age 72 ± 9), identifying 27 primary prostate lesions, 84 lymph node metastases, bone metastases in 8 patients, and other metastases in 2 patients. Primary prostate lesions showed no significant difference in SUVmax and target-to-blood pool (T/B) ratios between the two imaging times, while these parameters significantly increased over time in bone metastases. Lymph node metastases showed no significant difference in SUVmax but higher T/B ratios at 60 min compared to 30 min. A higher frequency of UBU was observed at 60 min (37.3%) compared to 30 min (32.3%), with significantly higher SUVmax and T/B ratios at 60 min. 85.6% UBU was categorized as PSMA-RADS 2 at 60 min, and the others were PSMA-RADS 3 or 4. The most frequent localization was vertebrae, followed by ribs. Interrater reliability was almost perfect for lesion detection at both time points.
conclusionEarly 30-min
Indexed as
Identifiers
39522079What 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.