Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31548813›Full record

SynthesisCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2019

C Harlos, U Metser, R Poon, P MacCrostie, W Mason

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

C HarlosSection of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, and Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.
U MetserJoint Department of Medical Imaging, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
R PoonProgram in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON.
P MacCrostieCancer Imaging, Clinical Programs and Quality Initiatives, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
W MasonDivisions of Neurology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON.
CancerCare Manitoba · CACancer Care Ontario · CAJuravinski Hospital · CAMount Sinai Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome (pns) is a rare condition indirectly caused by an underlying malignancy. In many cases, the malignancy is occult at the time of the pns diagnosis, and the optimal diagnostic modality to detect the underlying tumour is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to assess the utility of Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from the PET Access Program (pap) database in the province of Ontario to identify patients who underwent fdg-pet/ct imaging as part of a workup for pns. In all patients, prior conventional imaging was negative or indeterminate. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of fdg-pet/ct, data about demographics, presenting symptoms, and biochemical and radiologic workup, including fdg-pet/ct imaging results, were compared with data collected by the Ontario Cancer Registry (ocr). A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis using our study inclusion criteria were performed for studies of fdg-pet accuracy. Results: Of 29 patients identified in the pap database, 9 had fdg-pet/ct results suspicious for malignancy. When correlated with data from the ocr, 5 fdg-pet/ct results were informative, resulting in a detection rate of 17%. Local sensitivity and specificity were 0.83 and 0.83 respectively. Two studies meeting our criteria were identified in the literature. The pooled sensitivity and specificity from the literature and local data were 0.88 and 0.90 respectively. Conclusions: When investigating for underlying malignancy in patients with suspected pns and negative conventional imaging, pet has high sensitivity and specificity.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioParaneoplastic Syndromes, Nervous SystemRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultFluorodeoxyglucose F18malignancyParaneoplastic neurologic syndromepositron-emission tomographysensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID31548813
PMCPMC6726279
OpenAlexW2971064294

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.