ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Evaluation of
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- PET/MR Imaging of the Gastrointestinal Tract.Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America · 2026Review
- Evaluation ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Molecular imaging of stem cell therapies in ischemic stroke.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Review
- Impact of patient size on image quality of OSEM3D and BSREM reconstructions in [EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- PET/MRI: pictorial review of hepatobiliary and pancreatic applications.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Article
- Advancements in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Imaging and Future Frontiers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Reduction of [EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Comparison ofCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- PET/MRI imaging in neuroendocrine neoplasm.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- PET reporter systems for the brain.Trends in neurosciences · 2023Review
- Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors-Current Status and Advances in Diagnostic Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Prognostic Implications of PET-Derived Tumor Volume and Uptake in Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors.Cancers · 2023Review
- The potential application of MR-derived ADCmin values fromEJNMMI research · 2023Article
- Same-day comparative protocol PET/CT-PET/MRI [Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Article
- Evaluation of MRI in the diagnostic accuracy of extrahepatic metastases in neuroendocrine tumors in comparison with the reference standard somatostatin-receptor-PET/CT.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: what the radiologists should know.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- Shining Damaged Hearts: Immunotherapy-Related Cardiotoxicity in the Spotlight of Nuclear Cardiology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- An update on the diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Update on Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Biomarkers in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic performance of
methodsThirty patients with histopathologically confirmed NET underwent PET/CT and PET/MRI in a single-injection protocol. PET/CT and PET/MRI scans were prospectively evaluated with regard to lesion count, localization, nature (NET/non-NET), and conspicuity (four-point scale). Histopathology and follow-up imaging served as the reference standards. The proportions of NET and non-NET lesions rated correctly were compared using McNemar's chi-squared test. The Wilcoxon test was used to assess differences in SUVmax and lesion conspicuity. The correlation between the SUVmax for the same lesions from each modality was analysed using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r).
resultsAccording to the reference standard, there were 197 lesions (142 NET, 55 non-NET). Lesion-based analysis showed a higher proportion of correctly rated NET lesions on PET/MRI than on PET/CT (90.8% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.031), whereas on PET/CT there was a higher proportion of correctly rated non-NET lesions (94.5% vs. 83.6%, p = 0.031). SUVmax was strongly correlated (r = 0.86; p < 0.001) and did not differ significantly (p = 0.35) between the modalities. Overall conspicuity and NET lesion conspicuity were higher on PET/MRI (both p < 0.01).
conclusionsGa-DOTATOC PET/MRI yielded a higher proportion of correctly rated NET lesions and should be regarded as a valuable alternative to KEY POINTS: •
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.