ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2020
Visual PET/CT scoring of mesenteric fdg uptake to differentiate between tuberculous peritonitis and peritoneal carcinomatosis.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enduring Dilemmas in Gastroenterology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Characterizing omental PET/CT findings for differentiating tuberculous peritonitis from peritoneal carcinomatosis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to differentiate tuberculous peritonitis (TBP) from peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) using a visual positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scoring system based on mesenteric fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake.
methodsPET/CT scans from 31 patients with TBP and 92 patients with PC were retrospectively reviewed. A visual PET/CT scoring system for mesenteric FDG uptake was used according to the following characteristics: FDG uptake intensity (low = 0, moderate = 1, high = 2), FDG uptake deposits (uniform = 0, irregular = 1, ascitic = 2), FDG uptake focality (diffuse = 0, segmental = 1, focal = 2), nodularity on the corresponding CT (nonnodular = 0, micronodular = 1, macronodular = 2) and mesenteric lymphadenopathy (absent = 0, lymphadenopathy without FDG uptake = 1, lymphadenopathy with FDG uptake = 2). The FDG uptake intensity, deposits, focality, nodularity and mesenteric lymphadenopathy scores between TBP and PC were compared using chi-square tests. The diagnostic performance of this scoring system for differentiating TBP from PC was analyzed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsTwenty-four patients with TBP (77.4%) and 56 patients with PC (60.9%) had mesenteric FDG uptake (P = 0.095) and were included for evaluation with the visual PET/CT scoring system. PC lesions scored higher than TBP lesions in FDG uptake deposits (P < 0.001), focality (P < 0.001) and nodularity (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between PC and TBP lesions in FDG uptake intensity (P = 0.396) and lymphadenopathy (P = 0.074). The total score that combined deposits, focality and nodularity had significant value for differentiating TBP from PC (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.869, P < 0.001), and a cutoff > 1 had a sensitivity (the accuracy for diagnosis of PC) of 80.4% and a specificity (the accuracy for diagnosis of TBP) of 75.0%.
conclusionA visual PET/CT scoring system based on mesenteric FDG uptake performed well in differentiating between TBP and PC.
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.