ArticleWorld journal of radiology2014
Cost-effectiveness of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in tumours other than lung cancer: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of pretreatment second lookClinical and translational radiation oncology · 2021Article
- Droplet digital PCR of tumor suppressor gene methylation in serial oral rinses of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Head & neck · 2021Article
- Present and future role of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of breast cancer.Japanese journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Added value of cost-utility analysis in simple diagnostic studies of accuracy: (18)F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT in prostate cancer staging.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2015Article
- Excellence is the Enemy of Good.World journal of nuclear medicine · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo systematically review published data on the cost-effectiveness of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) in tumours other than lung cancer.
methodsA comprehensive literature search of studies published in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase databases through the 10(th) of October in 2013 was carried out. A search algorithm based on a combination of the terms: (1) "PET" or " PET/computed tomography (PET/CT)" or "positron emission tomography"; and (2) "cost-effectiveness" or "cost-utility" or "cost-efficacy" or "technology assessment" or "health technology assessment" was used. Only cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses in English language were included. Exclusion criteria were: (1) articles not within the field of interest of this review; (2) review articles, editorials or letters, conference proceedings; and (3) outcome evaluation studies, cost studies or health technology assessment reports. For each included study, information was collected concerning basic study, type of tumours evaluated, perspective/type of study, results, unit and comparison alternatives.
resultsSixteen studies were included. Head and neck tumours were evaluated in 4 articles, lymphoma in 4, colon-rectum tumours in 3 and breast tumours in 2. Only one article was retrieved for melanoma, oesophagus and ovary tumours. Cost-effectiveness results of FDG-PET or PET/CT ranged from dominated to dominant.
conclusionLiterature evidence about the cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET or PET/CT in tumours other than lung cancer is still limited. Nevertheless, FDG-PET or PET/CT seems to be cost-effective in selective indications in oncology (staging and restaging of head and neck tumours, staging and treatment evaluation in lymphoma).
Indexed as
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.