ArticleMedical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre2016
The Comparison of Computed Tomography Perfusion, Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Positron-Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for the Detection of Primary Esophageal Carcinoma.
Article in Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the efficiency of computed tomography perfusion (CTP), contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron-emission tomography (PET/CT) in the diagnosis of esophageal cancer. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThis prospective study consisted of 33 patients with pathologically confirmed esophageal cancer, 2 of whom had an esophageal abscess. All the patients underwent CTP, CECT and PET/CT imaging and the imaging findings were evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for each of the 3 imaging modalities relative to the histological diagnosis.
resultsThirty-three tumors were visualized on CTP, 29 on CECT and 27 on PET/CT. Six tumors were stage 1, and 2 and 4 of these tumors were missed on CECT and PET/CT, respectively. Significant differences between CTP and CECT (p = 0.02), and between CTP and PET/CT (p = 0.04) were found for stage 1 tumors. Values for the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values on CTP were 100, 100, 100 and 100%, respectively. Corresponding values on CECT were 93.94, 0, 93.94 and 0%, respectively, and those on PET/CT were 87.88, 0, 93.55 and 0%, respectively. Hence, the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of CTP were better than those of CECT and PET/CT.
conclusionCTP had an advantage over CECT and PET/CT in detecting small lesions. CTP was valuable, especially in detecting stage 1 tumors.
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.