ArticleMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy2022
Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Incidental Focal
Article in Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy, 2022. 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.
- Evaluation of metabolic uptake in gynecological organs using FDG-PET in women diagnosed with nongynecological malignancies.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Focal incidental colorectal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: Should it be spotlighted?World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Unexpected focal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in main organs; pass through or pass by?World journal of clinical cases · 2024Review
- Evaluation of Colonoscopic Results of Patients with Incidental Colonic FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- The Clinical Significance of Incidental GIT Uptake on PET/CT: Radiologic, Endoscopic, and Pathologic Correlation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The present study aimed to identify the prevalence of focal uptake in the colon on Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the files of 8,017 patients with known or suspected malignancy, who underwent whole-body Results: Fifty two patients (83.8%) had at least 1 corresponding lesion on colonoscopy, whereas in 10 patients no lesion was detected. Subsequent histopathological examinations revealed no corresponding lesion in 13 (13.7%), a benign lesion in 18 (18.9%), hyperplastic polyp in 10 (10.5%), low-grade polyp in 16 (16.8%), high-grade polyp in 29 (30.5%) and malignant lesion in 9 (9.5%) of the focal Conclusion: In conclusion, any unexpected focal
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.