| Title |
The diagnostic value of 18F–FDG-PET/CT and MRI in suspected vertebral osteomyelitis – a prospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-017-3912-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ilse J. E. Kouijzer, Henk Scheper, Jacky W. J. de Rooy, Johan L. Bloem, Marcel J. R. Janssen, Leon van den Hoven, Allard J. F. Hosman, Leo G. Visser, Wim J. G. Oyen, Chantal P. Bleeker-Rovers, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing vertebral osteomyelitis. From November 2015 until December 2016, 32 patients with suspected vertebral osteomyelitis were prospectively included. All patients underwent both 18F-FDG-PET/CT and MRI within 48 h. All images were independently reevaluated by two radiologists and two nuclear medicine physicians who were blinded to each others' image interpretation. 18F-FDG-PET/CT and MRI were compared to the clinical diagnosis according to international guidelines. For 18F-FDG-PET/CT, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV in diagnosing vertebral osteomyelitis were 100%, 83.3%, 90.9%, and 100%, respectively. For MRI, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 100%, 91.7%, 95.2%, and 100%, respectively. MRI detected more epidural/spinal abscesses. An important advantage of 18F-FDG-PET/CT is the detection of metastatic infection (16 patients, 50.0%). 18F-FDG-PET/CT and MRI are both necessary techniques in diagnosing vertebral osteomyelitis. An important advantage of 18F-FDG-PET/CT is the visualization of metastatic infection, especially in patients with bacteremia. MRI is more sensitive in detection of small epidural abscesses. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 31 | 41% |
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 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#19,214,418
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#2,305
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,523
of 444,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#27
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 444,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.