ArticleFrontiers in nuclear medicine2025
18F-FDG-PET/CT for polymyalgia rheumatica: agreement and diagnostic accuracy of routine PET scan report vs. standardized PMR PET scores.
Article in Frontiers in nuclear medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Localization and quantitative assessment of inflammation in frozen shoulder: a PET/MRI fusion imaging analysis.Skeletal radiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: 68 consecutive patients with suspected PMR (treatment-naïve, Results: A diagnosis of PMR was made in 45/68 patients. Routine scan reports were uniformly rated by all three readers in 54 (78%) cases. Following a consensus meeting, scans were rated as "PMR" in 43 cases, "unclear" in 10 cases and "not PMR" in 15 cases. The routine scan report showed a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 74%, if "unclear" cases were considered negative for PMR. The Leuven and Leuven/Groningen Scores showed similar diagnostic accuracy. Agreement between the routine scan report and PET scores was good (Cohen's kappa 0.60-0.64), if "unclear" cases were excluded from the analysis. Among 8/10 "unclear" cases, the PMR PET Scores accurately distinguished between PMR/PMR-mimicking inflammatory conditions and non-inflammatory conditions. Agreement and diagnostic accuracy of routine scan reports and PET scores were better among treatment-naïve patients than those that had been treated previously. Conclusion: Our study reveals that routine PET scan reports for suspected PMR can be interpreted differently between readers. Although the routine PET scan reports and PMR PET scores did not always agree, they demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy, with the highest accuracy observed in treatment-naive patients. The Leuven and Leuven/Groningen score could especially be helpful for cases in which the nuclear medicine physician is uncertain.
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.