ArticleOral radiology2019
Article in Oral radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- L-3-[International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Glycolytic pathway candidate markers in the prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2021Pooled it
- Treatment response assessment in resistant oral squamous cell carcinoma applyingOral radiology · 2026Article
- Integrative Analysis ofMolecular imaging and biology · 2025Article
- Correlation of preoperative 18F-FDG-PET/CT tumor staging and maximum standardized uptake values with preoperative CT, postoperative tumor classification, and histopathological parameters of oral squamous cell carcinoma.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- LAT1-specific PET radiotracers: Development and clinical experiences of a new class of cancer-specific radiopharmaceuticals.Theranostics · 2025Review
- Article
- Deep learning analysis using FDG-PET to predict treatment outcome in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma.European radiology · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesL-3-[
methodsWe enrolled 160 patients with OSCC who underwent PET/computed tomography using FDG and FAMT before treatment. Outcomes were assessed using clinicopathological characteristics such as the standardized uptake value (SUV
resultsClinical parameters (excluding age) and PET metabolic parameters were significantly associated with OS. Multivariate analysis showed that an infiltrative growth pattern [p = 0.034, hazard ratio (HR) = 2.30], and the FDG-measured SUV
conclusionsIn patients with OSCC, FDG PET predicted DFS, whereas FAMT predicted OS. The two PET tracers, combined with clinical parameters, provide complementary, outcome-related diagnostic information in OSCC.
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.