ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2022
Clinical and prognostic
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Vulvar Cancer - Update 2023.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2023Guideline
- PET Imaging in Vulvar Cancer: A Literature Review of the Current Evidence and Clinical Applications.Cancers · 2026Review
- Prognostic significance of Standard Uptake Value (SUVAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Imaging in Vulval Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
- Review
- From FDG and beyond: the evolving potential of nuclear medicine.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the Management of Gynecological Malignancies: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.Journal of imaging · 2023Review
- Review
- Prognostic Value of Pretherapeutic Primary Tumor MTV from [Metabolites · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this retrospective multicentric study was to investigate the diagnostic performance, the prognostic value and the impact of MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-three patients affected by VC performed
resultsFifty-two (82.5%) PET/CT showed the presence of recurrence, while the remaining 11 (17.5%) were negative. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of PET/CT were 100% (95%CI 93-100%), 92% (95%CI 62-100%), 98% (95%CI 89-99%), 100% and 98% (95%CI 92-100%). A relevant impact of
conclusions
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.