Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24133384›Full record

ReviewRadiology and oncology2013

Comparison between whole-body MRI and Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET or PET/CT in oncology: a systematic review.

Mario Ciliberto, Fabio Maggi, Giorgio Treglia, Federico Padovano, Lucio Calandriello, Alessandro Giordano, Lorenzo Bonomo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiology and oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Magnetic resonance imaging for lung cancer screen.Journal of thoracic disease · 2014
    Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

7 authors.

Mario CilibertoInstitute of Radiology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Fabio Maggi
Giorgio Treglia
Federico Padovano
Lucio Calandriello
Alessandro Giordano
Lorenzo Bonomo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the article is to systematically review published data about the comparison between positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) using Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) in patients with different tumours.

methodsA comprehensive literature search of studies published in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase databases through April 2012 and regarding the comparison between FDG-PET or PET/CT and WB-MRI in patients with various tumours was carried out.

resultsForty-four articles comprising 2287 patients were retrieved in full-text version, included and discussed in this systematic review. Several articles evaluated mixed tumours with both diagnostic methods. Concerning the specific tumour types, more evidence exists for lymphomas, bone tumours, head and neck tumours and lung tumours, whereas there is less evidence for other tumour types.

conclusionsOverall, based on the literature findings, WB-MRI seems to be a valid alternative method compared to PET/CT in oncology. Further larger prospective studies and in particular cost-effectiveness analysis comparing these two whole-body imaging techniques are needed to better assess the role of WB-MRI compared to FDG-PET or PET/CT in specific tumour types.

Indexed as

diffusion-weighted imagingfluorodeoxyglucoseoncologyPET/CTpositron emission tomographywhole-body magnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID24133384
PMCPMC3794875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.