Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42813470›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026

When the Number Matters: Contextualising Australian Reference Values for

Geoffrey Schembri, Jeremy Hoang

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 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

2 authors.

Geoffrey SchembriDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6814-3636
Jeremy HoangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5508-2516

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Are the historical 1%-4% thyroid uptake reference values still valid in modern practice? This editorial examines why contemporary Australian and international data suggest otherwise and situates the new reference range reported by Wornes (https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.70078) and colleagues within the broader international literature. It further identifies the one clinical scenario-distinguishing mild Graves' disease from silent thyroiditis-where quantitative uptake measurement genuinely changes management and argues for a nationally coordinated, prospectively designed re-derivation study.

Indexed as

AustraliaGraves diseasereference valuessodium pertechnetate Tc 99 mthyroid gland

Identifiers

PMID42813470
PMCPMC13625149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.