ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Multidisciplinary Postoperative Validation of
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of lymph node metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma using a PET/CT radiomics-based ensemble learning model and its pathological basis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Association between cigarette smoking history, metabolic phenotypes, andJournal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Next-Generation Lung Cancer Surgery: A Brief Trip into the Future of the Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to examine the validity of PET/CT scans in the preoperative identification of lymph node metastases (LNM) and compare them with postoperative outcomes.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we included 87 patients with a solitary lung nodule or biopsy-proven non-small cell lung cancer treated in our institution from 2009 to 2015. Patients were divided into two groups and four subgroups, depending on pre- and postoperative findings.
resultsAccording to our analysis, PET/CT scan has a sensitivity of 50%, a specificity of 88.89%, a positive predictive value of 63.16%, and a negative predictive value of 82.35%. Among the patients, 13.8% were downstaged in PET-CT, while 8% were upstaged. In 78.2% of cases, the PET/CT evaluation was consistent with the histology. Metastases without extracapsular invasion were seldom recognized on PET/CT.
conclusionsThis analysis showed the significance of extracapsular tumor invasion, which causes an inflammatory reaction, on LNM, which is probably responsible for preoperative false-positive findings. In conclusion, PET/CT scans are very effective in identifying patients without tumors. Furthermore, it is highly probable that patients with negative findings are free of disease.
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.