Journal Home
Search for

Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 146-159 (April 1999)


View previous. 5 of 7 View next.

Consensus report on quality control of quantitative measurements of renal function obtained from the renogram: International consensus committee from the scientific committee of radionuclides in nephrourology

Alain PrigentabcdefghiklCorresponding Author Information, Philip Cosgriffabcdefghikl, Gary F. Gatesabcdefghikl, Göran Graneursabcdefghikl, Eugene J. Fineabcdefghikl, Kazua Itohabcdefghikl, Mike Petersabcdefghikl, Amy Piepszabcdefghikl, Michael Rehlingabcdefghikl, Michael Rutlandabcdefghikl, Andrew Taylor Jrabcdefghikl

Among all the physiological indices that can be quantified using renography, measurement of renal function is the most basis. These measurements are used to make critical clinical management decisions and, as such, their reliability needs to be quality assured. This article seeks to address each aspect of the renography procedure, with particular emphasis on the effect on measurement of relative renal function. Estimation of individual kidney function is mentioned, but only briefly. A consensus approach was adopted, overseen, and directed by a chairman appointed by the Scientific Committee of the International Radionuclides in Nephro-Urology Group. The chairman selected the panel of experts from eight different countries based on their practical experience in the field. Where evidence exists to support the various recommendations it is given. Otherwise, the stated guidance represents the considered opinion of a body of experts, based on long experience and unpublished data. Some necessary compromises were made to account for the fact that renography is seldom performed solely with the purpose of measuring relative renal function. The technicalities of renography have always been a source of debate in nuclear medicine, which is reflected by the fact that a consensus could simply not be reached on a small number of issues. The structure of the report ensures that these are clearly indicated. This should serve to highlight gaps in our current knowledge, thus helping to direct future research. It is envisaged that the recommendations will be revised on a 2-year cycle to ensure that they remain up to date. An “open” process will be used to encourage participation and ownership. It is hoped that promotion of these guidelines, suitably complemented by audit processes, will raise standards in the practice of gamma camera renography.

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

a Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital Center of Bicêtre, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France

b Medical Physics Department, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, United Kingdom

c Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Vincent Medical Center, Portland, OR USA

d Department of Clinical Physiology, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden

e Nuclear Medicine Department, Jacobi Medical Center, New York, NY; USA

f Department of Radiology, Sapporo JR Hospital, Sapporo, Japan

g Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom

n Department of Pediatrics, AZ-VUB, Brussels, Belgium

i Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skejby University Hospital, Århus, Denmark

k Nuclear Medicine, Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

l Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. USA

Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Alain Prigent, MD, Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital Center of Bicêtre, 78 rue du General Leclerc, 94275 le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.

PII: S0001-2998(99)80005-1


View previous. 5 of 7 View next.