| Title |
The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Hybrid Imaging, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41824-017-0024-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Iain Duncan, Nicholas Ingold |
| Abstract |
To prospectively evaluate the clinical utility of xSPECT/CT Bone, a new reconstruction algorithm for single photon emission tomography (SPECT), and compare it with standard SPECT/CT reconstruction. Sequential reporting of SPECT/CT followed by xSPECT/CT images in 200 sequential cases commencing August 2015. Differences between the initial SPECT/CT and the final report (after xSPECT/CT reconstruction) were documented and analysed. 12-18 months after the initial study follow-up, clinical data was sought from a subset of cases in which xSPECT/CT changed the primary diagnosis and imaging correlation undertaken in all patients who subsequently had MRI or CT scans of the same region. A majority of the 200 cases were related to assessment of musculoskeletal complaints. The final (scan) diagnosis was changed after reviewing the xSPECT/CT images in 40 (20%) of cases. The reporting physician (Iain Duncan) assessed that the xSPECT/CT had provided more diagnostic information in 71% of cases. A total of 470 additional lesions were found, equivalent to 2.4 lesions per case. In 33 cases of imaging follow-up there was a high degree of correlation with bone scan findings and xSPECT correlated better than SPECT in regard to detailed findings. In only 15/40 cases of diagnostic change could the outcome be verified and in 12/15 the xSPECT/CT revised diagnosis was confirmed. In this observational evaluation xSPECT/CT Bone reconstruction offers identifiable imaging improvements over standard SPECT/CT reconstruction algorithms. xSPECT/CT Bone provides an improvement in diagnostic confidence and identifies a greater number of lesions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 27% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 38% |
| Engineering | 3 | 12% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,506,823
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Hybrid Imaging
#33
of 70 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,218
of 332,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Hybrid Imaging
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 70 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.