ArticleScientific reports2022
Diagnostic performance of core needle biopsy for nodal recurrences in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound in Neck Node NI-RADS Category 2.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Role of Cell-free DNA as a Non-Invasive Biomarker in the Detection of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2025Article
- The Applications and Potential Developments of Ultrasound in Oral Cancer Management.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy and affecting factors of ultrasound (US)-guided core-needle biopsy (CNB) in patients with treated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We retrospectively reviewed patients with treated HNSCC who received US-guided CNB from January 2011 to December 2018 with corresponding imaging. Pathological necrosis and fibrosis of targeted lymph nodes (LNs) were evaluated. We analyzed the correlation between CNB accuracy and clinical and pathological characteristics. In total, 260 patients were included. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of CNB for nodal recurrence were 84.47%, 100%, 100%, 54.67%, and 86.92%, respectively. CNB of fibrotic LNs had significantly worse sensitivity, NPV, and accuracy than that of non-fibrotic LNs. Similarly, CNB of necrotic LNs had significantly worse sensitivity, NPV, and accuracy than non-necrotic LNs. Multivariate regression revealed that fibrotic LN was the only independent factor for a true positive rate, whereas both necrotic LN and fibrotic LN were independent factors for a false negative rate. The diagnostic accuracy of CNB in treated HNSCC patients is affected by LN necrosis and fibrosis. Therefore, CNB results, particularly for necrotic or fibrotic LNs, should be interpreted carefully.
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.