ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
The potential of [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeChronic hip pain after total hip replacement (THR) poses a diagnostic challenge and frequently yields lengthy and unsatisfactory diagnostic work-up. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic role and clinical impact of [
methodsIn this randomized study, 20 patients with persistent hip pain of unclear origin after THR underwent either PET/MRI-guided clinical management or regular diagnostic work-up. Additional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during 12-month follow-up were recorded and a final expert diagnosis was determined through expert opinion based on all available information. Patient reported outcomes included pain scores, functional scores and quality of life.
resultsIn the PET/MRI group, a final expert diagnosis could be established for 8/10 patients compared to 5/10 in the control group. PET-MRI contributed to this diagnosis in 7 of 10 patients by identifying 5 new pain sources, confirming 3 clinically suspected pain sources, and excluding 1 clinically suspected pain source. At 6 months, mean pain scores on NRS 0-10 decreased in both groups (PET/MRI: 6.1 to 5.2; control: 5.2 to 3.4). Between-group differences could not be statistically tested due to insufficient statistical power.
conclusionInitial results demonstrate the potential of [
Indexed as
Identifiers
42629492What 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.