Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37240619›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

The Prognostic and Diagnostic Value of [

Akram Al-Ibraheem, Ahmed Saad Abdlkadir, Dhuha Al-Adhami, Taher Abu Hejleh, Asem Mansour, Issa Mohamad, Malik E Juweid, Ula Al-Rasheed, Nabeela Al-Hajaj, Dima Abu Laban and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Prognostic Value of SequentialWorld journal of nuclear medicine · 2023
    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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Akram Al-IbraheemDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT, King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Al-Jubeiha, Amman 11941, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0002-0978-4716
Ahmed Saad AbdlkadirDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT, King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Al-Jubeiha, Amman 11941, Jordan.
Dhuha Al-AdhamiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT, King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Al-Jubeiha, Amman 11941, Jordan.
Taher Abu HejlehDepartment of Medical Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan.
Asem MansourDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan.
Issa MohamadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0003-0153-9131
Malik E JuweidDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan.
Ula Al-RasheedDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT, King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Al-Jubeiha, Amman 11941, Jordan.
Nabeela Al-HajajDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT, King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Al-Jubeiha, Amman 11941, Jordan.
Dima Abu LabanDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan.
Enrique Estrada-LobatoNuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, 1220 Vienna, Austria.
Omar SarairehDepartment of Surgical Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan.
King Hussein Cancer Center · JOUniversity of Jordan · JOInternational Atomic Energy Agency · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of staging PET/CT and neck MRI in patients with laryngeal carcinoma and to assess the value of PET/CT in predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Sixty-eight patients who had both modalities performed before treatment between 2014 and 2021 were included in this study. The sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT and MRI were evaluated. PET/CT had 93.8% sensitivity, 58.3% specificity, and 75% accuracy for nodal metastasis, whereas MRI had 68.8%, 61.1%, and 64.7% accuracy, respectively. At a median follow-up of 51 months, 23 patients had developed disease progression and 17 patients had died. Univariate-survival analysis revealed all utilized PET parameters as significant prognostic factors for OS and PFS (

Indexed as

[18F]FDG PET/CT vs. neck MRIlaryngeal squamous-cell carcinomametastatic lymph nodeMTVPET/CTsemiquantitative PET parametersTLG

Identifiers

PMID37240619
PMCPMC10218884
OpenAlexW4377020841

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.