Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31388636›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2019

Network meta-analysis of novel and conventional sentinel lymph node biopsy techniques in breast cancer.

C W Mok, S-M Tan, Q Zheng, L Shi

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C W MokDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery Changi General Hospital Singapore.
S-M TanDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery Changi General Hospital Singapore.
Q ZhengSingapore Clinical Research Institute Singapore.
L ShiSingapore Clinical Research Institute Singapore.
Changi General Hospital · SGSingapore Clinical Research Institute · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare the performance of blue dye alone or in combination with radioisotope (technetium-99m, Tc) with three novel techniques for sentinel lymph node detection in breast cancer: indocyanine green fluorescence (ICG), superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging (CEUS). Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Research Integrated Database, ClinicalTrials.gov and OpenGrey databases were searched up to 31 November 2017, without language restriction. Studies that compared the detection performance of at least one of the novel methods (ICG, SPIO and CEUS) with that of traditional methods (blue dye and/or radioisotope) were included in network meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-five studies were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) for Tc (1·09, 95 per cent c.i. 1·04 to 1·15), ICG (1·12, 1·07 to 1·16) and SPIO (1·09, 1·01 to 1·18) showed statistically better performance in detecting sentinel lymph nodes than blue dye alone. ICG had the lowest false-negative rate, with a RR of 0·29 (0·16 to 0·54), followed by Tc (RR 0·44, 0·20 to 0·96) and SPIO (RR 0·45, 0·14 to 1·45), with blue dye alone as the reference group. Conclusion: SPIO or ICG alone are superior to blue dye alone and comparable to the standard dual-modality technique of blue dye with Tc.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyColoring AgentsFemaleHumansIndocyanine GreenMagnetite NanoparticlesMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityColoring AgentsIndocyanine GreenMagnetite Nanoparticles

Identifiers

PMID31388636
PMCPMC6677105
OpenAlexW2979877989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.