From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Radiology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Radiology task force (marked as High-importance).


This page fails to mention the second most useful attribute of PET/CT

An attenuation map can be derived from the CT otherwise the SUVs will appear abnormally low towards the centre of the body.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retsil (talkcontribs) 08:38, 10 March 2008‎ (UTC)


This article duplicates and overlaps with the positron emission tomography article, with which it should be combined. Fbarw (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

wrong duplication identified[edit]

Needs to merge with SPECT, not PET.

I just proposed a merge. Rob Hurt (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
SPECT/PET-CT, etc. is a distinctly different modality than PET alone.

PET-CT or PET/CT[edit]

Google says PET/CT is the way to do this, not PET-CT. This is of course an abbreviation and there is no absolute standard but it seems that PET/CT is the most common method to abbreviate this. Therefore I think that the article and its contents should probably be changed to reflect the more common usage. (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated}}

MOS:SLASH and WP:SUBPAGE ; these articles should not reside in subpage locations, and should avoid using slashes -- (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose moves for PET/CT and PET/MRI to PET-CT and PET-MRI. Agree that use of slashes is to be avoided in articles but these are headings; they are also the used names referenced in literature - see last ref and others in PET/MRI page. Would point to the heading of this Wikipedia page: Requested moves/Technical requests Iztwoz (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Harvard calls it "Pet-CT" [1]; and we have a guideline to avoid slashes, and these are found in the real world with slashes and with dashes, therefore the dashed form is preferred on Wikipedia. This is a Technical Move since it applies MOS:SLASH; a recommendation for Wikipedia article titles -- (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The article at PET/CT was moved there a few hours ago due to a technical request. Sounds like it's time for someone (User:Iztwoz?) to open a formal move discussion at Talk:PET/CT to decide on the permanent name. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As long as all pages are consistent - Somebody said Harvard uses Pet-CT…..the IAEA in its nuclear medicine section uses PET/CT predominantly…..and Google listings in the main do list PET/CT. Iztwoz (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: In case anyone is worried about PET/CT being a subpage of PET, it is not. However talk space allows subpages, so Talk:PET/CT (where we are now) is a subpage of Talk:PET. You can verify this by checking the upper left corner of this page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • This is a wrong link - PET goes to a disambiguation page……? Iztwoz (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • There is a merge request on Positron emission tomography which ought to be the link to this talk page so PET really needs to have its own link and redirect. That aside, WP guidelines are just that; the reality is that there are countless uses of forward slash in entries e.g surface/phonological from B class article dyslexia. The use of slashes needs to be avoided as far as possible but it seems that there are many instances where their use is suitable. Iztwoz (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • We can avoid the slash here, since out in the wild, people do use dashes. -- (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree What does Pubmed say? PET-CT: 10,238, PET/CT: 8009, PET-MR: 220, PET/MR: 175. Personally, I would have chosen a slash, but given that a dash seems more common, and a slash causes some technical confusion, I think we should move both articles to use a dash. GyroMagician (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested redirects[edit]

-- (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)