ArticleMedicine2019
Impact of contrast ultrasound diagnosis for patients with liver cancer.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A combined model based on radiomics features of Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the Kupffer phase for the diagnosis of well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma and atypical focal liver lesions: a prospective, multicenter study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Tumor Targeting with Apatinib-loaded Nanoparticles and Sonodynamic Combined Therapy.Current molecular medicine · 2024Article
- Machine learning algorithm of ultrasound-mediated intestinal function recovery and nursing efficacy analysis of lower gastrointestinal malignant tumor after surgery.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
- Study Protocol Titles: Erratum.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous studies have reported that contrast ultrasound (CU) can be utilized for diagnosis in patients with liver cancer (LC) accurately. However, no systematic review has addressed to assess its diagnostic impact on patients with LC. Thus, this systematic review will investigate the accurate of CU diagnosis on LC.
methodsA comprehensive literature search for relevant studies will be performed in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDILINE, Web of Science, PSYCINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inceptions to the March 10, 2019. All case-controlled studies investigating the impacts of CU diagnosis on LC will be included in this study. Two researchers will independently carry out study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. The quality will be assessed by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Statistical analysis will be conducted by RevMan V.5.3 (Cochrane Community, London, UK) and Stata V.12.0 software (Stata Corp, College Station).
resultsThis study will present the accuracy of CU diagnosis for patients with LC through the assessment of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of CU.
conclusionThe findings of this study will summarize the current evidence for accuracy of CU diagnosis in patients with LC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127108.
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.