ArticleEuropean journal of hybrid imaging2021
Locating hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands using
Article in European journal of hybrid imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining the role of presurgical PET/4D-CT in a large series of patients with primary hyperparathyroidism undergoing [European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Article
- Neuroendocrine Parathyroid Tumors: Quality of Life in Patients with Primary Hyperparathyroidism.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- [Special features of the diagnostics and treatment of hereditary primary hyperparathyroidism].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Changes in quality of life 6 months after parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism.Endocrine connections · 2022Article
- DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCES OF 18F-FLUOROCHOLINE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AND REPEATED ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN DETECTING UNDEFINED LESIONS IN PATIENTS WITH AN INDICATION FOR PRIMARY HYPERPARATHYROIDISM SURGERY.Acta endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of
resultsIntra-observer agreement was 'good' to 'near perfect' for all readers. Inter-observer agreement was good between non-experts and the expert, with kappa values ≥ 0.74. Sensitivities between non-experts and the expert were high, > 81%, when assessing which side and 75% when assessing thyroid quadrant. All specificities were > 94%. Reader certainties were 'high' in > 80% of cases for the expert and > 70% and > 65%, respectively for the two non-experts.
conclusion
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.