ArticleBMJ open2016
Comparing the accuracy of quantitative versus qualitative analyses of interim PET to prognosticate Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review protocol of diagnostic test accuracy.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. 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.
- Article
- Prognostic role of baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters in Burkitt lymphoma.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- Prediction of Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival by theContrast media & molecular imaging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHodgkin lymphoma is an effectively treated malignancy, yet 20% of patients relapse or are refractory to front-line treatments with potentially fatal outcomes. Early detection of poor treatment responders is crucial for appropriate application of tailored treatment strategies. Tumour metabolic imaging of Hodgkin lymphoma using visual (qualitative) 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is a gold standard for staging and final outcome assessment, but results gathered during the interim period are less accurate. Analysis of continuous metabolic-morphological data (quantitative) FDG-PET may enhance the robustness of interim disease monitoring, and help to improve treatment decision-making processes. The objective of this review is to compare diagnostic test accuracy of quantitative versus qualitative interim FDG-PET in the prognostication of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.
methodsThe literature on this topic will be reviewed in a 3-step strategy that follows methods described by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). First, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be searched. Second, listed databases for published literature (MEDLINE, Tripdatabase, Pedro, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WoS) and unpublished literature (Open Grey, Current Controlled Trials, MedNar, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cos Conference Papers Index and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO) will be queried. Third, 2 independent reviewers will analyse titles, abstracts and full texts, and perform hand search of relevant studies, and then perform critical appraisal and data extraction from selected studies using the DATARI tool (JBI). If possible, a statistical meta-analysis will be performed on pooled sensitivity and specificity data gathered from the selected studies. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed. Funnel plots, Begg's rank correlations and Egger's regression tests will be used to detect and/or correct publication bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated by publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethical assessment will not be needed; only existing sources of literature will be searched. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016027953.
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.