Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40055228›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Use of diagnostic vs low-dose computed tomography in positron emission tomography-CT examinations.

Matthew Malekhedayat, Carly Stewart, Philip W Chu, Yifei Wang, Nima Kasraie, Benjamin Franc, Rebecca Smith-Bindman

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. PET scout: A valuable technology in pediatricEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matthew MalekhedayatDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Carly StewartDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Philip W ChuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Yifei WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Nima KasraieDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Benjamin FrancDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Rebecca Smith-BindmanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Rebecca.Smith-Bindman@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1972-639X

Funding

NCI NIH HHS 1R01CA181191-01A1Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute CD-1304-7043Residual class settlement funds in the matter of April Krueger v. Wyeth, Inc., Case No. 03-cv-2496 (US District Court, SD of Calif.) N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine CT radiation dose variation in PET-CT and understand how often providers use diagnostic vs lower doses for attenuation correction and anatomic localization (AC/AL).

methodsRetrospective, multi-centered study of PET-CT exams from 2010 to 2021. Exams were categorized as body or brain. Radiation dose was quantified using dose length product (DLP), adjusted for patient size (DLP

resultsSixty-four thousand two hundred ten exams included 93% body, 7% brain. Doses were higher and more variable in the body than brain exams (adult mean DLP

conclusionWhile diagnostic CT is sometimes indicated for PET-CT, body exams generally do not use AC/AL protocols. Doses were higher than previously reported, higher than analogous diagnostic CT exams, and higher in older children than adults when size adjusted. KEY POINTS: Question How does CT radiation dose vary in PET-CT and how often do providers use diagnostic vs lower doses for AC/AL? Findings Most facilities did not use AC/AL protocols for body PET-CT, and CT effective doses were higher than previously reported. Clinical relevance The considerable inter-facility variation observed suggests ample opportunity to reduce ionizing radiation doses for CT in body PET-CT by adopting low-dose (AC/AL) protocols and other dose reduction techniques.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiation DosageTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdolescentAdultAgedBrainChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesPatient safetyPositron emission tomography computed tomographyRadiation dosage

Identifiers

PMID40055228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.