Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32953250›Full record

ReviewCurrent radiology reports2020

Acute Findings on FDG PET/CT: Key Imaging Features and How to Differentiate Them from Malignancy.

Yan Li, Spencer Behr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current radiology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Post-traumatic neuroma mimicking lymph node metastasis onQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Yan LiDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA.
Spencer BehrDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9400-0543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo review acute findings commonly encountered during routine clinical FDG PET/CT studies and present key imaging features to differentiate them from malignant counterparts. RECENT

findingsFDG PET/CT is extensively used in routine clinical practice for oncology patients. Incidental acute findings in patients undergoing FDG PET/CT are increasingly common, and awareness of these findings and their mimics are important in delivering a clinically relevant and accurate radiological report for directing further management. SUMMARY: This article will review examples of common acute findings encountered during routine FDG PET/CT scans, compare them against examples of FDG-avid malignancy that can mimic these findings and emphasize key imaging findings to differentiate acute findings from their malignant mimics.

Indexed as

FDGInfectionInflammationMalignancyMimicsPET/CT

Identifiers

PMID32953250
PMCPMC7486592

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.