Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33003615›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Yan Li, Laura Isabel Mueller, Jan Peter Neuhaus, Stefanie Bertram, Benedikt Michael Schaarschmidt, Aydin Demircioglu, Johannes Maximilian Ludwig, Julian Kirchner, Christoph Rischpler, Ken Herrmann and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Diagnostic performance of [Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Diagnostic Performance of [World journal of nuclear medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Radiotherapy volume delineation based on MRI andAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Article
  10. 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

12 authors.

Yan LiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Laura Isabel MuellerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Jan Peter NeuhausDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Stefanie BertramInstitute of Pathology and Neuropathology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Benedikt Michael SchaarschmidtDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Aydin DemirciogluDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Johannes Maximilian LudwigDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Julian KirchnerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225 Dusseldorf, Germany.
Christoph RischplerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Ken HerrmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Onofrio Antonio CatalanoDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Lale UmutluDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate and compare the diagnostic performance of

methodsA retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracies of combined reading of PET/MR and MR alone in T, N and M staging against the reference standard. Inter-observer agreement regarding TNM staging was calculated separately for PET/MR and MR alone.

resultsA total of 39 studies of 34 patients could be evaluated. Diagnostic accuracies of PET/MR and MR alone were the same in locoregional T staging. For predicting N+ stage, the specificity of combined reading of PET and MR (0.917 and 0.833 for reader 1 and 2, respectively) was slightly higher than MR alone (0.833 and 0.75) without significantly increasing the overall accuracy (0.783 vs. 0.783 and 0.783 vs. 0.739). For detecting distant metastasis, the sensitivities of PET/MR and MR alone were shown equal (1.0 vs. 1.0 and 0.938 vs. 0.938), while the specificity of PET/MR was marginally lower (0.87 vs. 0.913 and 0.826 vs. 0.87). The inter-observer agreements were good to excellent in M (κ = 0.64 and 0.637 for PET/MR and MR alone,

conclusionPET did not yield a significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy of PET/MR in TNM staging of rectal cancer, since MR alone facilitated accurate classification of disease stage with good to excellent inter-observer agreement.

Indexed as

diagnosishybrid imagingPETPET/MRpositron-emission tomographyrectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID33003615
PMCPMC7599654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.