ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
The value of
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The diagnostic value of quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (xSPECT/CT) in the screening of bone metastases of various malignant tumors varies. This study investigated the differential diagnostic value of quantitative parameters of Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the Results: The study cohort comprised 75 girls and 50 boys with an average age of 5.94 years (0.6-9 years). The SUVs of metastatic bone lesions were significantly higher than those of normal bone (P<0.0001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the SUV values of metastatic bone lesions among the different Curie score subzones (P>0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) values for the SUVmax, SUVavg, SUVmin, and SUVpeak were 0.946 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.921-0.971], 0.962 (95% CI: 0.939-0.984), 0.953 (95% CI: 0.928-0.978), and 0.959 (95% CI: 0.936-0.982), respectively (P<0.0001). The optimal diagnostic thresholds identified for the SUVmax, SUVavg, SUVmin, and SUVpeak were 0.39, 0.36, 0.19 and 0.35, respectively. The SUVavg was the best index among the different Curie score subzones, and the specificity of the quantitative analysis in diagnosing bone metastasis in NB patients was better than that of the visual analysis. We also showed that tumor stage and neuron specific enolase (NSE) levels are important factors influencing the diagnosis of bone metastasis. There was no statistically significant difference in the SUV values for normal bone among different physical parameters (P>0.05). Conclusions: A SUVavg above 0.36 g/mL in NB patients had the best efficacy in the diagnosis of bone metastasis in NB patients. Quantitative indexes of xSPECT/CT had better specificity in the diagnosis of bone metastasis in NB patients than the visual analysis.
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.