ArticleAsia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology2025
Improving the image quality of short-time bone SPECT using cadmium-zinc-telluride detectors with SwiftScan.
Article in Asia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the quality and associated quantitative values of bone single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with and without SwiftScan using a semiconductor camera equipped with a cadmium-zinc-telluride detector. Methods: Ten patients with bone metastases from prostate cancer who underwent list-mode SPECT/computed tomography using a whole-body semiconductor camera participated in this study. A total of 130 metastatic lesions from 10 patients were analyzed. Standard SPECT images were obtained approximately 3 h later, and the images were constructed with and without SwiftScan. Results: The visual assessment of 3-dimensional maximum intensity projection images showed that when an image quality score of 4 (good) or better was considered clinically acceptable, it was maintained at 4 or better in the 75% and 50% scans with SwiftScan, whereas only the 75% scan was considered acceptable without SwiftScan. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.952 at 5% for the standard time without SwiftScan and 0.990 with SwiftScan. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV Conclusion: With the use of SwiftScan, a 50% reduction in acquisition time was considered acceptable for image quality with reproducible quantitative indices such as SUV
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.