ReviewBMJ open2023
Diagnostic value of PET with different radiotracers and MRI for recurrent glioma: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Review in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing [18F]FET PET and [18F]FDOPA PET for glioma recurrence diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Preliminary Results on the Added Value of Parametric Images Derived fromMolecular imaging and biology · 2026Article
- Translation of PET radiotracers for cancer imaging: recommendations from the National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator (NCITA) consensus meeting.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 6 different imaging modalities for differentiating glioma recurrence from postradiotherapy changes by performing a network meta-analysis (NMA) using direct comparison studies with 2 or more imaging techniques. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, the Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to August 2021. The Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies with the criterion for study inclusion being direct comparison using 2 or more imaging modalities. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The consistency was evaluated by examining the agreement between direct and indirect effects. NMA was performed and the surface under the the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values was obtained to calculate the probability of each imaging modality being the most effective diagnostic method. The CINeMA tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Direct comparison, inconsistency test, NMA and SUCRA values.
resultsA total of 8853 potentially relevant articles were retrieved and 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This review indicates that PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021293075.
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.