ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Intersoftware variability in SPECT quality control: A technical note on analytical discrepancies and compliance decisions.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality control (QC) is essential for ensuring the diagnostic reliability of Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) systems. However, the reliance on third-party software for analyzing QC metrics introduces a potential source of variability that is not yet standardized. Variability in QC results due to the use of different image analysis software may compromise both equipment evaluation and interinstitutional comparability. PURPOSE: This technical note assessed the variability in QC test results generated by different SPECT image analysis software packages to underscore the need for improved standardization.
methodsFive representative commercial SPECT QC software packages (A-E) were used to analyze identical DICOM image sets acquired from four SPECT/CT systems in accordance with the WS 523-2019 standard. Evaluated metrics included file reading success rates, key performance indicators (intrinsic uniformity, resolution, linearity), and compliance rates. Statistical analysis employed ANOVA or Welch's tests, followed by LSD post hoc testing, with effect sizes (η
resultsFile reading success varied significantly (61.8%-100%), with Softwares B and D exhibiting higher failure rates. Compliance rates for identical devices varied considerably (68.8%-100%). Statistically significant intersoftware differences were found for intrinsic integral uniformity (F = 10.17, p < 0.05, η
conclusionWe found significant disparities between software packages in both file reading capability and the analysis of key QC performance indicators. These differences directly impact the accuracy of equipment performance evaluations and interinstitutional comparability, potentially leading to divergent conclusions regarding the same device's compliance status.
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.