Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29085194›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2017

Evaluation of recurrence in gastric carcinoma: Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

Jong Hyeon Kim, Suk Hee Heo, Jin Woong Kim, Sang Soo Shin, Jung Jun Min, Seong Young Kwon, Yong Yeon Jeong, Heoung Keun Kang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Accuracy ofExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
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.

Jong Hyeon KimDepartment of Radiology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam 519-763, South Korea.
Suk Hee HeoDepartment of Radiology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam 519-763, South Korea.
Jin Woong KimDepartment of Radiology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam 519-763, South Korea.
Sang Soo ShinDepartment of Radiology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju 501-757, South Korea.
Jung Jun MinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hostpital, Jeonnam 519-763, South Korea.
Seong Young KwonDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hostpital, Jeonnam 519-763, South Korea.
Yong Yeon JeongDepartment of Radiology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam 519-763, South Korea. yjeong@jnu.ac.kr.
Heoung Keun KangDepartment of Radiology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam 519-763, South Korea.
Chonnam National University Hospital · KRChonnam National University Hwasun Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare the value of contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) and fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for detecting gastric carcinoma recurrence.

methodsWe retrospectively examined data from 2475 patients who underwent both contrast-enhanced abdominal CT and FDG PET/CT for the surveillance of gastric carcinoma curative resection. Patients had an interval of less than 1 mo between their CT and PET/CT scans. Sixty patients who had recurrence were enrolled. Among 1896 patients who did not have recurrence, 60 were selected by simple random sampling. All CT and PET/CT images were reviewed retrospectively by two reviewers blinded to all clinical and pathologic information except curative resection due to gastric carcinoma.

resultsThe pathological stage of the recurrence group was statistically significantly higher than that of the control group (

conclusionContrast-enhanced CT was superior to PET/CT in the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis and pathologic type of adenocarcinoma.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinomaFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18GastrectomyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPeritoneal NeoplasmsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsContrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomographyFluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomograph/computed tomographyGastric carcinomaRecurrenceSurgerySurveillance

Identifiers

PMID29085194
PMCPMC5643270
OpenAlexW2759992943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.