ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Clinical Impact of
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research progress and trends on PET/CT imaging of pancreatic cancer: a bibliometric analysis.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility ofMedComm · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- Article
- Imaging Modalities for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: Current State and Future Research Opportunities.Cancers · 2022Review
- Review
- Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance in the Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Delphi Consensus Proposal.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Current controversies and advances in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma by Immuno-Positron Emission Tomography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this review, the performance of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the diagnostic workup of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is evaluated. A comprehensive literature search up to September 2020 was performed, selecting studies with the presence of: sample size ≥10 patients and index test (i.e., "FDG" or "18F-FDG" AND "pancreatic adenocarcinoma" or "pancreas cancer" AND "PET" or "positron emission tomography"). The methodological quality was evaluated using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool and presented according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Basic data (authors, year of publication, country and study design), patients' characteristics (number of enrolled subjects and age), disease phase, type of treatment and grading were retrieved. Forty-six articles met the adopted research criteria. The articles were divided according to the considered clinical context. Namely, besides conventional anatomical imaging, such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), molecular imaging with FDG PET/CT is an important tool in PDAC, for all disease stages. Further prospective studies will be necessary to confirm the cost-effectiveness of such imaging techniques by testing its real potential improvement in the clinical management of PDAC.
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.