ReviewJournal of bone oncology2019
Diagnostic accuracy of functional imaging modalities for chondrosarcoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of bone oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Whole-body imaging for distant staging of bone chondrosarcoma: a systematic review.La Radiologia medica · 2025Pooled it
- Chondrosarcoma of the Temporomandibular Joint: Systematic Review and Survival Analysis of Cases Reported to Date.Head and neck pathology · 2021Pooled it
- Multimodal contrastive learning for non-invasive chondroid bone tumor classification and grading using radiographs.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- The Role of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in Primary Bone Tumours: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Diagnosis of chondrosarcoma in a noninvasive way using volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath: a pilot study.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Update on the imaging features of the enchondromatosis syndromes.Skeletal radiology · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe distinction between low-grade (grade 1) chondrosarcoma and its benign counterparts can be challenging. This systematic review aims to quantify the diagnostic accuracies of all functional imaging modalities used in the diagnosis of chondrosarcoma.
methodsMedline and Embase were searched in February 2019. We included studies of either retrospective or prospective design if the results of functional scans were compared with pre-determined reference standards. Studies had to be primary diagnostic reports on patients with chondral tumours at first diagnosis. Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality. We calculated diagnostic accuracy measures for each included study.
resultsFour functional imaging modalities were identified across thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria. 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) was a sensitive and specific test. Technetium-99 m with methylene diphosphonate (Tc-99 m MDP) had an overall low specificity of 4%. Thallium-201 scintigraphy demonstrated high positive predictive values across the studies. The negative predictive values of Technetium-99 m pentavalent dimercaptosuccinic acid (Tc-99 m DMSA (V)) were consistently 100%.
conclusionsLow-grade chondrosarcomas continue to pose a diagnostic dilemma. FDG-PET demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy compared to Tc-99 m MDP, Thallium-201 and Tc-99 m DMSA (V). Characteristic uptake patterns of Thallium-201 and Tc-99 m DMSA (V) may provide additional metabolic information to guide the diagnosis in this challenging group of tumours.
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.