ArticleEJNMMI reports2026
Injection method alters diagnostic confidence and quantitative metrics in [
Article in EJNMMI reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies evaluating [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT for parathyroid adenoma localisation fail to report the injection method used. At our department, manual injection method (MIM) was initially used, before converting to an automated injection system (AIS). Afterwards, physicians observed increased retention of the radiotracer within the veins leading from the injection site, which had not been as present previously. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the injection method had a clinical impact.
methodsThe study compared two groups consisting of 60 patients, where the injection method was the only difference. Two physicians, blinded to injection method, evaluated if retention was present and interpretation was jeopardised. Quantitative measures were determined based on the original diagnostic confidence scores (DCS) for each suspected lesion, as these were compared between patient groups. Additionally, the maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax) were measured for the suspected lesions along with the thyroid and salivary glands as a physiological reference point. Comparisons of the quantitative parameters were also performed between patients with or without retention.
resultsThere was significant more occurrence of retention in AIS-group (83.3%) than MIM group (36.7%), (p < 0.00001). Retention did not influence the interpretation of any patient. A significant difference of DCS was observed, as 18% of lesions in the AIS-group had a low score, compared to only 1% in the MIM-group (p < 0.001). SUVmax was significantly lower in the AIS-group than the MIM-group for the reported adenomas (10.1 vs. 11.8, p = 0.008). In addition, SUVmax in the AIS-group was significantly lower in both the thyroid (4.6 vs. 5.2, p = 0.023) and salivary glands (10.8 vs. 12.4, p < 0.001). Comparison between patients with and without retention revealed similar differences in DCS and SUVmax for adenomas.
conclusionThe AIS is associated with a significant higher presence of retention, low diagnostic confidence and overall lower SUVmax, which indicates an aspect of clinical impact. It could potentially lead to a parathyroid adenoma being missed or classified as normal parathyroid tissue. Thus, manual injection method might be the method of choice, to ensure the most optimal clinical outcome.
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.