ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
[
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEnd-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients undergoing renal replacement therapy (RRT) are at increased risk of infections, inflammatory disorders, and malignancies because of immune dysfunction, repeated vascular access procedures, and immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplantation. Fever of unknown origin (FUO) is particularly challenging to investigate in this population, and evidence regarding the role of [18 F]FDG PET/CT remains limited. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance, clinical impact, and predictors of positive [18 F]FDG PET/CT findings in ESRD patients with FUO.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or kidney transplantation who underwent [18 F]FDG PET/CT for FUO between 2014 and 2021. PET/CT findings were compared with the final diagnosis established by microbiological, histopathological, imaging, laboratory, and follow-up data. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Clinical impact was assessed according to the influence of PET/CT on diagnostic and therapeutic management.
resultsEighty-seven patients were retrospectively included, 53 (61%) on hemodialysis, 27 (31%) on peritoneal dialysis, and 7 (8%) after kidney transplantation. [18 F]FDG PET/CT was positive in 57 cases (65%). Final diagnoses included infectious diseases in 36 patients, non-infectious inflammatory diseases in 20, malignancies in 10, while no diagnosis was established in 21. The most common infectious causes were catheter-related bloodstream infection, infective endocarditis, spondylodiscitis, pneumonia, and vascular graft infection; large-vessel vasculitis was the predominant inflammatory disease, and lymphoma the most frequent malignancy. PET/CT achieved a sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 71%, positive predictive value of 89.5%, negative predictive value of 50%, and overall accuracy of 76%. Elevated C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and longer hospitalization independently predicted positive PET/CT findings. PET/CT influenced clinical management in 66 patients (76%) by guiding targeted therapy, invasive diagnostic procedures, additional investigations, or avoiding unnecessary interventions after negative examinations.
conclusion[18 F]FDG PET/CT demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy and substantial clinical impact in ESRD patients with FUO receiving RRT. These findings support the early integration of PET/CT into the diagnostic work-up of this high-risk population, particularly in patients with elevated inflammatory biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42658448What 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.