ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
PET/CT acquisition and processing protocols in the Netherlands.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How can children benefit from total-body PET?The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Smart scanning for two: [EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in hepatology.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate variations in acquisition and processing protocols for four of the most common PET/CT examinations in Dutch hospitals: FDG-WB, [
methodsAll nuclear medicine departments in the Netherlands with a PET/CT scanner were invited to participate in a survey about acquisition and processing protocols for FDG-WB, [
resultsA total of 42 hospitals responded (including all Dutch University Medical Centers), providing data from 58 PET/CT systems spanning 11 different models from 4 vendors. Injected activity and scan duration varied widely across hospitals, even for the same scanner model and examination type. A moderate negative correlation was observed between scanner sensitivity and the normalized injected activity × scan duration product for FDG-WB (R
conclusionThe main objective of this survey was to determine the current state of practice in the Netherlands for three common PET/CT examinations. We observed variations in the injected activity for all PET/CT exam types, even within the same scanner model, that cannot be explained by taking into account differences in scanning times or uptake times. The direct implication of the observed variation in injected activity is a similar variation in radiation dose to the patient. We observed differences in dose to the patient of up to a factor 4 for FDG-WB, more than a factor of 5for [
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.