Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27647163›Full record

SynthesisLa Radiologia medica2017

Diagnostic performance of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting peritoneal metastases: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andrea Laghi, Davide Bellini, Marco Rengo, Fabio Accarpio, Damiano Caruso, Daniele Biacchi, Angelo Di Giorgio, Paolo Sammartino

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in La Radiologia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 152 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea LaghiDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "SAPIENZA" University of Rome, I.C.O.T. Hospital, Via Franco Faggiana, 1668, 04100, Latina, Italy. andrea.laghi@uniroma1.it.
Davide BelliniDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "SAPIENZA" University of Rome, I.C.O.T. Hospital, Via Franco Faggiana, 1668, 04100, Latina, Italy.
Marco RengoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "SAPIENZA" University of Rome, I.C.O.T. Hospital, Via Franco Faggiana, 1668, 04100, Latina, Italy.
Fabio AccarpioDepartment of Surgery "P. Valdoni", "SAPIENZA" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Viale Regina Elena 324, Rome, 00161, Italy.
Damiano CarusoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "SAPIENZA" University of Rome, I.C.O.T. Hospital, Via Franco Faggiana, 1668, 04100, Latina, Italy.
Daniele BiacchiDepartment of Surgery "P. Valdoni", "SAPIENZA" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Viale Regina Elena 324, Rome, 00161, Italy.
Angelo Di GiorgioDepartment of Surgery "P. Valdoni", "SAPIENZA" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Viale Regina Elena 324, Rome, 00161, Italy.
Paolo SammartinoDepartment of Surgery "P. Valdoni", "SAPIENZA" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Viale Regina Elena 324, Rome, 00161, Italy.
Policlinico Umberto I · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrimary end point was to assess diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting peritoneal metastases (PM). Secondary end points were determining the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CT in detecting PM according to the peritoneal cancer index (PCI), investigating correlations between radiological and surgical PCI, and comparing diagnostic yield of CT versus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science databases. Analytic methods were based on PRISMA. Pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using fixed and random effect models. I

resultsOf the 529 articles initially identified, 22 were selected for inclusion (934 patients). Cumulative data for per patient CT diagnostic accuracy were sensitivity 83 % (95 % CI 79-86 %), specificity 86 % (95 % CI 82-89 %), pooled positive LR 4.37 (2.58-7.41), and pooled negative LR 0.20 (0.11-0.35). On a per region basis CT performed best in epigastrium and pelvis. Correlation analysis showed a high correlation between CT-PCI and surgical-PCI scores, ranging from 0.49 to 0.96. MRI and PET/CT achieved similar per patient diagnostic accuracy.

conclusionsCT should be the preferred diagnostic imaging modality for detecting peritoneal metastases because of the robustness of the data. MRI and PET/CT should be considered second choices, until more consistent information on their diagnostic yield in detecting PM are obtained.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansPeritoneal NeoplasmsPositron-Emission TomographySensitivity and SpecificityAccuracyComputed tomographyMagnetic resonance imagingPeritoneal Cancer IndexPeritoneal carcinomatosis

Identifiers

PMID27647163
OpenAlexW2522587390

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.