ArticleOncology letters2019
Diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT in bone tumors.
Article in Oncology letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of CNN-based deep learning architectures for early diagnosis of bone cancer using CT images.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Tumor and Ablation Margin Visibility during Cryoablation of Musculoskeletal Tumors: Comparing Intraprocedural PET/CT Images with CT-Only Images.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2023Article
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
Clinical value of PET/CT (positron emission tomography/computed tomography) in the diagnosis of malignant bone tumors (BT) was investigated. Fifty-four patients with BT were first diagnosed by ordinary CT and then by PET/CT. The diagnostic efficacy outcomes and diagnosis of malignant BT by clinical stage of the two methods for BT were observed and recorded, and the diagnostic value of PET/CT in the diagnosis of BT was evaluated. There were 14 cases of benign BT patients, 15 cases of stage I, 10 cases of stage II and 15 cases of stage III in malignant BT patients. The diagnostic coincidence rate of PET/CT was 92.59% and the diagnostic coincidence rate of CT was 72.22%, which showed that the diagnostic coincidence rate of PET/CT was significantly higher than that of CT (P<0.05). The sensitivity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of PET/CT were 95.00, 85.71 and 95.00%, respectively, which were higher than those of CT (P<0.05). CT and PET/CT were used for the clinical staging and pathological diagnosis of malignant BT; the results showed that the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT in the clinical stages of malignant BT was also significantly higher than that of CT (P<0.05). The diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT in BT is better than that in CT. PET/CT can diagnose the pathological properties of BT more accurately, and can also effectively diagnose the clinical stage of malignant BT and provide clinical diagnostic basis for follow-up procedures.
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.