ArticlePathology research international2011
Correlation of tissue biopsy and fine needle aspiration cytology with positron emission tomography results.
Article in Pathology research international, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of in vivo bone microarchitecture changes in an anti-TNFα treated psoriatic arthritic patient.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Recent chemotherapy reduces the maximum-standardized uptake value of 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in colorectal cancer.Gut and liver · 2014Article
- Cone-beam computed tomography fusion and navigation for real-time positron emission tomography-guided biopsies and ablations: a feasibility study.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans are positive in any condition which increases metabolism in a mass or tissue and are therefore not specific for neoplastic conditions. The use of an SUV cutoff value of 2.5 may not always help discriminate between benign and malignant cases. For a practicing cytopathologist doing adequacy checks during an image-guided procedure, it may be of value to be aware that elevated SUV values are not always indicative of a malignant process, and vice versa.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.