SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2019
Diagnostic accuracy of
Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic role of F-18 FDG PET/CT in determining preoperative Lymph node status of patients with rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Pooled it
- IsContrast media & molecular imaging · 2020Pooled it
- Pelvic lymph node management in prostate cancer: a narrative review.Prostate international · 2025Review
- Limitations of abdominopelvic CT and multiparametric MR imaging for detection of lymph node metastases prior to radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Efficacy of repeated PSMA PET-directed radiotherapy for oligorecurrent prostate cancer after initial curative therapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of the current study was to investiagte the diagnostic accuracy of
methodsPubMed and Embase from the earliest available date of indexing through December 31, 2018, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of
resultsAcross seven studies (627 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.42-0.70)] and a pooled specificity of 0.94 [95% CI (0.89-0.97)]. Likelihood ratio (LR) syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 10.2 (95% CI; 5.0-21.0) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.46 (95% CI; 0.33-0.64). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 22 (95% CI; 9-54).
conclusionsADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:
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.