ReviewEJNMMI physics2025
The SwiftScan step-and-shoot continuous mode improves SPECT scanning efficiency: a preliminary phantom and clinical test.
Review in EJNMMI physics, 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.
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
purposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the value of SwiftScan Step-and-Shoot Continuous (SSC) scanning mode in enhancing image quality and to explore appropriate scanning parameters for reducing scan time.
methodsThis study was composed of a phantom study and two clinical tests. The differences in visual image quality scores, coefficient of variance (COV) of the background, image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and recovery coefficient (RC) of the sphere were compared between SSC mode and traditional Step-and-Shoot (SS) mode in the phantom study. Various "shoot" acquisition times (5s, 10s, 15s) and "step" angles (3-degree, 6-degree, 9-degree) were evaluated and verified. In the clinical tests, bone tomography and parathyroid tomography were performed on 30 patients each. Differences in visual image quality scores, background COV, image SNR, CNR, and standardized uptake value (SUV) of lesions were compared between the two modes.
resultsIn the phantom study, SSC mode demonstrated higher visual scores and significantly reduced background COV (P < 0.05), and significantly increased SNR and CNR (P < 0.05) compared to SS mode. No significant alteration in RC was observed (P > 0.05). In the clinical tests, no significant differences were found between the optimal SSC scan combination (10s "shoot" and 6-degree "step")/ (10s "shoot" and 3-degree "step") and the traditional SS scan combination (15s "shoot" and 6-degree "step")/ (15s "shoot" and 3-degree "step") in visual image quality scores, background COV, image SNR, CNR, and SUV of bone and parathyroid high uptake lesions (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe SwiftScan SSC mode can reduce acquisition time by 33% while maintaining similar image quality and quantification accuracy compared to SS mode. An SSC scanning protocol with a 10s "shoot" acquisition and 6-degree "step" or with a 10s "shoot" acquisition and 3-degree "step" over a 360-degree rotation, is recommended for clinical use.
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.