Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22544291›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2012

Standardising measurement of tumour vascularity by imaging: recommendations for ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography.

Adrian K Dixon, Fiona J Gilbert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adrian K DixonDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and the University of Cambridge, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Level 5, Box 218, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. Adrian.dixon@european-radiology.org
Fiona J Gilbert

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review analyses the need for, and likely impact of, four subsequent papers which discuss the importance of standardisation of ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) when assessing tumour vascularity. This is particularly important when measuring the vascular effects of therapeutic agents in oncological research and practice. As imaging inexorably moves from the subjective interpretative art-form of the past into its modern role as a fully fledged objective scientific discipline, it is incumbent on all radiologists to understand the need for strict adherence to perceived best practice when evaluating lesions as part of trials. Indeed trials may only be funded by pharmaceutical companies and other grant-giving bodies if rigorous adherence to imaging protocols and quality assurance is in place. Key Points • Various imaging methods can now robustly assess tumour vascular support. • US, CT, MRI and PET are increasingly used to assess tumour vascularity. • These techniques have reached technical maturity for use in therapeutic oncological trials. • Consensus guidelines about using these techniques in assessing tumour vascularity are introduced. • Image acquisition protocols and quality assurance must be established for large trials.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicDiagnostic ImagingHumansInternationalityMedical OncologyNeoplasmsNeovascularization, PathologicRadiologyReference Standards

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.