Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36777163›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022

Standardized classification schemes in reporting oncologic PET/CT.

Vanessa Murad, Roshini Kulanthaivelu, Claudia Ortega, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Ur Metser

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vanessa MuradMolecular Imaging Division, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Roshini KulanthaiveluMolecular Imaging Division, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Claudia OrtegaMolecular Imaging Division, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Patrick Veit-HaibachMolecular Imaging Division, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ur MetserMolecular Imaging Division, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAWomen's College Hospital · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The imaging report is essential for the communication between physicians in patient care. The information it contains must be clear, concise with evidence-based conclusions and sufficient to support clinical decision-making. In recent years, several classification schemes and/or reporting guidelines for PET have been introduced. In this manuscript, we will review the classifications most frequently used in oncology for interpreting and reporting

Indexed as

Deauvillehead and neck cancerimmunotherapyKrenningPETPROMISE

Identifiers

PMID36777163
PMCPMC9909469
OpenAlexW4318067179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.