ArticlePediatric radiology2025
Weight-based determination of administered activity in
Article in Pediatric radiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe North American consensus guidelines recommend a weight-based administered activity for renal cortical scintigraphy with
objectiveTo compare the adequacy of image quality of infant DMSA renal SPECT examinations obtained using the minimum administered activity recommended by the consensus guidelines with simulated data utilizing a strict weight-based dosage. MATERIALS AND
methodsPhase 1: Datasets of 55 infants (29 females, 26 males, median age 3.0 months and weight 5.6 kg) undergoing DMSA SPECT from 2016 to 2021 were identified with 7 used for training and 48 used for study analysis. Data from patients receiving the administered activity recommended by the consensus guidelines ("full dosage", group A) were processed using binomial resampling to add Poisson noise to mimic a strict weight-based scheme ("simulated reduced dosage", group A'). Three experienced nuclear medicine physicians, who were blinded to group membership and clinical information, independently evaluated adequacy of image quality for clinical interpretation on a 4-point scale. Student's paired t-test was utilized for group comparisons and inter-rater agreements were calculated using kappa statistics. Phase 2: Group A' simulated data were compared to a second cohort of
resultsObservers' ratings were combined for analysis resulting in n=144 case-pairs (3 observers × 48 case-pairs) in phase 1. In phase 1, the ratings of groups A and A' were identical for 73.6% (106/144) of case-pairs and never differed by more than ±1 level. No significant rating difference was found between the groups (mean (SD) of 1.17 (0.93) versus 1.22 (0.98), P=0.20). Similarly, in phase 2, no significant rating difference was found between groups A' and B (mean (SD) of 0.80 (0.81) versus 0.50 (0.68), P=0.14).
conclusionThere was no significant difference in the adequacy of image quality of
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.