Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35210272›Full record

SynthesisAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2022

ADC for Differentiation between Posttreatment Changes and Recurrence in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

A Baba, R Kurokawa, M Kurokawa, O Hassan, Y Ota, A Srinivasan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A BabaFrom the Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan akirababa0120@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6913-5307
R KurokawaFrom the Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-1186-8900
M KurokawaFrom the Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-3907-9188
O HassanFrom the Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-7927-5378
Y OtaFrom the Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0001-8992-2156
A SrinivasanFrom the Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-4400-1959
University of Michigan · USMichigan Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies reported that the ADC values of recurrent head and neck cancer lesions are lower than those of posttreatment changes, however, the utility of ADC to differentiate them has not been definitively summarized and established. PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic benefit of ADC calculated from diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating recurrent lesions from posttreatment changes in head and neck cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE data bases were searched for studies. STUDY SELECTION: The review identified 6 prospective studies with a total of 365 patients (402 lesions) who were eligible for the meta-analysis. DATA ANALYSIS: Forest plots were used to assess the mean difference in ADC values. Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Q test and the I DATA SYNTHESIS: Among included studies, the overall mean of ADC values of recurrent lesions was 1.03 × 10 LIMITATIONS: Given the heterogeneity of the data of the study, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

conclusionsThe ADC values in recurrent head and neck cancers are lower than those of posttreatment changes, and the threshold of ADC values between them was suggested.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansProspective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID35210272
PMCPMC8910821
OpenAlexW4213453227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.