Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29190937›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

Yang Liu, Jie Ma, Yingxin Liu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yang LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, People's Republic of China.
Jie MaDepartment of Radiology, Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, People's Republic of China.
Yingxin LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, People's Republic of China.
Guangxi Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the value of

resultsThis present study analyzed a total of 6 selected studies (1374 patients). The sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.93), and 0.98 (95% CI = 0.97 to 0.98). Area under the curve was 0.98 (95% CI = 0.96 to 0.99).

methodsStudies were systematically searched for relevant PET-CT original articles in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for

conclusions

Indexed as

PET-CTsecond primary cancersstaging

Identifiers

PMID29190937
PMCPMC5696203
OpenAlexW2759143784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.