Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28781642›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2017

Diagnosing giant cell tumor of the bone using positron emission tomography/computed tomography: A retrospective study of 20 patients from a single center.

Aikeremujiang Muheremu, Yuan Ma, Zhen Huang, Huachao Shan, Yuan Li, Xiaohui Niu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Frontiers in medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Giant Cell Tumor of Soft Tissue: An Updated Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  6. Giant Cell Tumor of Mandible : A Case Report.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Skeletal radiology · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Aikeremujiang MuheremuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Ürümqi, Uygur Autonomous Region 830011, P.R. China.
Yuan MaDepartment of Spine Surgery, Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Ürümqi, Uygur Autonomous Region 830011, P.R. China.
Zhen HuangDepartment of Orthopedic Oncology Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing 100035, P.R. China.
Huachao ShanDepartment of Orthopedic Oncology Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing 100035, P.R. China.
Yuan LiDepartment of Orthopedic Oncology Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing 100035, P.R. China.
Xiaohui NiuDepartment of Orthopedic Oncology Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing 100035, P.R. China.
Peking University · CNXinjiang Medical University · CNBeijing Jishuitan Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the sensitivity of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the diagnosis of giant cell tumor of the bone (GCTB) using the maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax), which indicates the metabolic rate of tissue. Patients diagnosed with pathologically confirmed GCTB between January 2006 and July 2015 were included in the study. Data from PET/CT scans and pathological and clinical reports for all patients were retrospectively reviewed. The SUVmax value from the PET/CT scan of each patient was retrieved and analyzed. A total of 20 patients [12 male and 8 female; age range, 12-45 years; mean age ± standard deviation (SD), 33.5±15.7] with complete PET/CT data and a pathologically and clinically confirmed diagnosis were examined. The SUVmax of GCTB was between 1.8 and 18.6, with a mean ± SD of 9.2±3.8. Although GCTB is not considered to be a malignant lesion, PET/CT scans of the tumors reveal high-grade malignant osseous sarcomas. It is, therefore, important not to mistake such lesions for osteosarcomas or metastatic malignancies of the bone.

Indexed as

giant cell tumor of the bonemaximum standard uptake valuepositron emission tomography/computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID28781642
PMCPMC5530223
OpenAlexW2626720300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.