ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2020
Advantages of additional PET vs. MRI in the clinical diagnosis of anterior mediastinal tumors.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study retrospectively examined the diagnostic utility of adding positron emission tomography (PET) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to computed tomography (CT) alone for preoperative diagnosis of anterior mediastinal tumors. A total of 104 consecutive patients who had undergone surgical resection of anterior mediastinal tumors were divided into two groups: Additional PET to another modality and no additional PET to another modality, and further subdivided into three groups: CT alone, additional MRI to CT and additional PET to CT. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosing malignant tumors in each subgroup was calculated. Comparing the two groups, the diagnostic sensitivity was similar for additional PET (98.0%) and no additional PET (95.2%) groups; however, the specificity and accuracy for additional PET (75.0 and 92.2%, respectively) were significantly improved compared with no additional PET (31.6 and 65.0%, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, adding PET to CT showed an improvement in specificity and positive predictive value for detecting malignant tumors, compared with either additional MRI to CT or CT alone. Additional PET, but not MRI, has advantages over CT alone in clinically distinguishing benign from malignant tumors of the mediastinum.
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.