ArticleIndian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India
Comparative Study between
Article in Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of [Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of PET/computed tomography versus PET/MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging in the N- and M-staging of breast cancer patients.Nuclear medicine communications · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical Value of Diffusion-Weighted Whole-Body Imaging with Background Body Signal Suppression (DWIBS) for Staging of Patients with Suspected Head and Neck Cancer.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Progress and Future Trends in PET/CT and PET/MRI Molecular Imaging Approaches for Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-three female patients with suspected breast cancer recurrence by clinical, laboratory, or conventional imaging underwent both
resultsPET/CT demonstrated higher specificity and sensitivity indices than MR/DWIBS in the detection of the nodal and distant lesions, while the latter displayed higher sensitivity in the detection of local breast lesions. The overall sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and accuracy of PET/CT were 84.8%, 86.3%, 90.4%, 78.7%, and 85.4% versus 82.1%, 78.0%, 85.2%, 74.0%, and 80.5% for MR/DWIBS. A high degree of agreement existed between PET/CT and MR-DWIBS.
conclusion
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.