Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33178978›Full record

ReviewBJR open2020

Pearls and pitfalls in lung cancer staging.

Lucian Beer, Ankush Jajodia, Helmut Prosch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJR open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. The lung cancers: staging and response, CT,The British journal of radiology · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Ankush JajodiaRajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India.
Helmut ProschDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer is the third most common cancer in the UK and is the leading cause of death. Radiology plays a central role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected and known lung cancer. Tumour assessment includes both local staging, as well as distant staging. Local staging objectives include the assessment of technical resectability with regard to the evaluation of tumour size and invasion of surrounding structures. Distant staging objectives aim to identify distant metastasis in lymphatic and extra lymphatic tissues. CT, positron emission tomography/CT, MRI, and ultrasound are routinely used imaging techniques for staging in patients with lung cancer. In this review, we will consider the pitfalls of these examinations that radiologists potentially face during the work-up of patients with lung cancer.

Identifiers

PMID33178978
PMCPMC7594898

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.