ArticleRadiology and oncology2017
PET/CT imaging in polymyalgia rheumatica: praepubic
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging methods in polymyalgia rheumatica: a systematic review.Rheumatology international · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostic value of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in polymyalgia rheumatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Pooled it
- MRI of shoulder girdle in polymyalgia rheumatica: inflammatory findings and their diagnostic value.RMD open · 2024Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging in polymyalgia rheumatica-contrast enhancement is not always needed.Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2024Article
- Characterising polymyalgia rheumatica on whole-bodyRheumatology advances in practice · 2024Review
- Disease stratification in GCA and PMR: state of the art and future perspectives.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective review of patients with newly suspected PMR undergoing baseline and follow up
resultsTwenty-three out of 89 screened patients (26%) presented with initial praepubic
conclusionsIncreased praepubic
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.