Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36688976›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2023

Imaging modalities and optimized imaging protocols in pregnant patients with cancer.

Margaret Adejolu, Anuradha S Shenoy-Bhangle, Melissa McGettigan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Margaret AdejoluDepartment of Radiology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Rd, London, SW3 6JJ, England, UK. margaret.adejolu@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6986-5614
Anuradha S Shenoy-BhangleDivision of Abdominal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55, Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8957-6548
Melissa McGettiganDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Interventional Radiology and Department of Oncologic Sciences, College of Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center and University of South Florida, 12902 USF Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9231-8224

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical imaging during pregnancy may be necessary to diagnose conditions that affect the outcome of the mother and fetus. Diagnosis and staging of cancer in pregnant women can be particularly challenging due to fear of inherent risk to the fetus, lack of standardized imaging protocols, and ethical challenges posed while choosing the best imaging option. Ultrasound and MRI, due to lack of ionizing radiation, are preferred over CT and nuclear imaging. The latter may be considered only if the benefits of imaging outweigh maternal and fetal risk without exceeding the cumulative established fetal radiation dose threshold. This article provides an overview of all currently available imaging options that can be used for imaging cancer during pregnancy to support the best possible maternal and fetal outcomes.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPregnancy ComplicationsFemaleFetusHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPregnancyImaging modalitiesPregnancyProtocols

Identifiers

PMID36688976

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.