ArticleJournal of the Belgian Society of Radiology2020
Update on Diagnostic Performance of PET/MRI in Gynecological Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Comparative efficacy and workflow efficiency of integrated PET/MRI versus sequential PET/CT and MRI in gynecologic cancer staging: a prospective single-center study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the Management of Gynecological Malignancies: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.Journal of imaging · 2023Review
- Current Update on PET/MRI in Gynecological Malignancies-A Review of the Literature.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of the Gynecologic Tract.Cancers · 2022Review
- Diagnostic performance of PET/CT and PET/MR in the management of ovarian carcinoma-a literature review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Review
- Role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, IndiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of PATIENTS AND
methodsA systematic literature search for original diagnostic studies was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science. The methodological quality of each study was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Data necessary for entry in 2 × 2 contingency tables were obtained, and patients, study, and imaging characteristics were extracted from the selected articles. Statistical analysis included data pooling, heterogeneity testing, sensitivity analyses, forest plotting, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve construction.
resultTwelve studies met our predefined inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Patient-based analysis, the pooled sensitivity rate, specificity rate, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for
conclusionsOur meta-analysis demonstrated that
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.