ArticleIndian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India
Article in Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [18F]FDG- PET/CT in Staging and Restaging of Fetal Type Adenocarcinoma of the Lung: A Case Report and a Review of the Literature.Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Methods: We retrospectively included 93 patients with advanced stage (III-IV) LC who underwent Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of like Deauville-like score criteria were 82,76% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.5%-91.4%), 80% (95% CI 28.3%-99%), 97.9% (95% CI 89.2%-99.6%), 28.6%(95% CI 16.38%-44.9%), and 82.5% (95% CI 70.9-90.9%), respectively. Applying Hopkins criteria score we obtained sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 81% [95% CI 68.6%-90.1%), 100% (95% CI 47.2-100%), 100% (95% CI %), 31.3% (95% CI 21.0%-43%), and 82.5%(95% CI 70.9%-90.9%), respectively. There was a high agreement between the two readers both using Hopkins criteria ( Conclusion: The application of 3-point scale criteria for posttherapy assessment in patients with advanced stage of LC represents an easy and reproducible method with optimal inter-observer agreement and great PPV and accuracy.
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.