Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31127357›Full record

SynthesisSkeletal radiology2019

Comparison of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jing Zhou, Zhengxing Gou, Renhui Wu, Yuan Yuan, Guiquan Yu, Yigang Zhao

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Skeletal radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Superiority ofAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Jing ZhouDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Fuling Central Hospital of Chongqing City, No. 2 Gaosuntang Road, Fuling District, Chongqing, 408000, China.
Zhengxing GouDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Fuling Central Hospital of Chongqing City, No. 2 Gaosuntang Road, Fuling District, Chongqing, 408000, China. skysky999@163.com.
Renhui WuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Fuling Central Hospital of Chongqing City, No. 2 Gaosuntang Road, Fuling District, Chongqing, 408000, China.
Yuan YuanDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Fuling Central Hospital of Chongqing City, No. 2 Gaosuntang Road, Fuling District, Chongqing, 408000, China.
Guiquan YuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Fuling Central Hospital of Chongqing City, No. 2 Gaosuntang Road, Fuling District, Chongqing, 408000, China.
Yigang ZhaoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Fuling Central Hospital of Chongqing City, No. 2 Gaosuntang Road, Fuling District, Chongqing, 408000, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, Sodium Fluoride (NaF) PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer.

methodsWe searched PubMed and Embase for articles published between January 1990 and September 2018. Two evaluators independently extracted the sensitivity, specificity, the numbers of true and false positives, and true and false negatives. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each method. We calculated the tests' diagnostic odds ratios (DOR); drew the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves; and obtained the areas under the curves (AUC), Q* values, and 95% CIs.

resultsThe per-patient pooled sensitivities of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and BS were 0.97, 0.87, 0.96, 0.91, and 0.86, respectively. The pooled specificities were 1.00, 0.99, 0.97, 0.96, and 0.95, respectively. The pooled DOR values were 504.16, 673.67, 242.63, and 114.44, respectively. The AUC were 1.00, 0.99, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.95, respectively. The per-lesion pooled sensitivities of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone imaging were 0.88, 0.80, 0.97, 0.81 and 0.68, respectively.

conclusionsAccording to the meta-analysis, PSMA-PET/CT had the highest per-patient sensitivity and specificity in detecting bone metastases with prostate cancer. The sensitivities of NaF-PET/CT and MRI were better than those for choline-PET/CT and BS. The specificity of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly better than BS. Others were similar. For per-lesion, NaF-PET/CT had the highest sensitivity, PSMA-PET/CT had higher sensitivity than choline-PET/CT and MRI, and BS had the lowest sensitivity.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadionuclide ImagingBone NeoplasmsCholineGallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesHumansMaleMembrane GlycoproteinsOrganometallic CompoundsProstatic NeoplasmsRadiopharmaceuticalsSodium FluorideCholinegallium 68 PSMA-11Gallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesMembrane GlycoproteinsOrganometallic CompoundsRadiopharmaceuticalsSodium FluorideBoneMeta-analysisMetastasesPositron emission tomography/computed tomographyProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID31127357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.