Home › Research › End-of-life care
Impact of Training Method on the Robustness of the Visual Assessment of 18F-Florbetaben PET Scans: Results from a Phase-3 Study
Seibyl J, Catafau AM, Barthel H, Ishii K, Rowe CC, Leverenz JB, Ghetti B, Ironside JW et al.. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2016-01-28
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Florbetaben scans were assessed visually and quantitatively, and results were compared with amyloid plaque scores. Results Data were available from 82 patients who died and underwent postmortem histopathology. When visual assessment results were compared with BSS + immunohistochemistry as SoT, median sensitivity was 98.2% for the in-person-trained interpreters and 96.4% for the e-trained interpreters, and median specificity was 92.3% and 88.5%, respectively.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Seibyl, J., Catafau, A. M., Barthel, H., Ishii, K., Rowe, C. C., Leverenz, J. B., et al. (2016). Impact of Training Method on the Robustness of the Visual Assessment of 18F-Florbetaben PET Scans: Results from a Phase-3 Study. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.161927
Vancouver
Seibyl J, Catafau AM, Barthel H, Ishii K, Rowe CC, Leverenz JB, et al. Impact of Training Method on the Robustness of the Visual Assessment of 18F-Florbetaben PET Scans: Results from a Phase-3 Study. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2016. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.161927. PMID: 26823561.
BibTeX
@article{seibyl2016-26823561,
author = {Seibyl, J. and Catafau, A. M. and Barthel, H. and Ishii, K. and Rowe, C. C. and Leverenz, J. B. and Ghetti, B. and Ironside, J. W. and others},
title = {{Impact of Training Method on the Robustness of the Visual Assessment of 18F-Florbetaben PET Scans: Results from a Phase-3 Study}},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.2967/jnumed.115.161927},
pmid = {26823561},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.161927}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Florbetaben scans were assessed visually and quantitatively, and results were compared with amyloid plaque scores.
- Results Data were available from 82 patients who died and underwent postmortem histopathology.
- When visual assessment results were compared with BSS + immunohistochemistry as SoT, median sensitivity was 98.2% for the in-person-trained interpreters and 96.4% for the e-trained interpreters, and median specificity was 92.3% and 88.5%, respectively.
Study details
- Study designopen-label trial
- Participants82
- Effect size98.2%; 96.4%; 92.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a large phase 3 trial. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A large phase 3 trial (from PubMed type “Clinical Trial, Phase III”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 82 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26823561) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 40 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “18f”
318 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 318 tagged studies.