Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42572024›Full record

ReviewBMC medical imaging2026

Optimal timing of post-therapeutic [

Andreas Pfestroff, Hannah Wolfram, Kathrin Pfestroff, Wadim Bowl, Ali Ebrahimifard, Shamim Bagheri, Pietro di Fazio, Behrooz H Yousefi, Elisabeth Maurer, Katharina Holzer and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Andreas PfestroffDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Hannah WolframDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Kathrin PfestroffDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Wadim BowlDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Ali EbrahimifardDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Shamim BagheriDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Pietro di FazioDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Behrooz H YousefiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Elisabeth MaurerDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Katharina HolzerDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Glenn FluxJoint Department of Physics, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Jan TaproggeJoint Department of Physics, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Markus LusterDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Friederike EilsbergerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg University, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany. friederike.eilsberger@staff.uni-marburg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPost-therapeutic [

methodsThis retrospective secondary analysis included prospectively acquired ptWBS data from 35 patients. Scans obtained at 6, 24, 48, 72, and 168 h after RAIT were independently ranked by three nuclear medicine physicians and evaluated with a 10-item criteria-based image-quality score. Rankings were analyzed using a Plackett-Luce model, and criteria-based scores were analyzed using generalized estimating equations.

resultsThe analysis comprised 167 scans, 501 criteria-based ratings, and 500 intuitive rank observations. The 24-h acquisition had the highest estimated preference, followed by 48, 6, 72, and 168 h. After Holm adjustment, 24 h was favored over 6, 72, and 168 h, whereas the difference between 24 and 48 h was not significant (P = 0.091). The criteria-based score was highest at 24 h (39.52; 95% CI, 38.62-40.43) and next-highest at 48 h (34.79); all pairwise differences in scores were significant. Each 5-point increase in the criteria-based score was associated with higher odds of a more favorable intuitive ranking (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.70-2.38).

conclusionsPtWBS acquired at 24 h provided the best overall interpretability of the images. A 48 h scan may be considered when practical or radiation-protection considerations favor later imaging, but equivalence to 24 h has not been established. Additional delayed imaging may still be useful when distant metastatic disease is suspected.

Indexed as

Iodine RadioisotopesThyroid NeoplasmsWhole Body ImagingAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadionuclide ImagingRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsIodine-131Iodine RadioisotopesAcquisition timingDifferentiated thyroid cancerImage qualityPost-therapeutic whole-body scintigraphyRadioiodine therapyReader agreement

Identifiers

PMID42572024
PMCPMC13455259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.