SynthesisPediatric radiology2023
Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging versus positron emission tomography-computed tomography for the staging of pediatric lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can Whole-Body Diffusion-weighted MRI Become a One-Stop-Shop Imaging Modality in Pediatric Sarcoma Imaging?Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Comparing Whole-Body Diffusion-weighted MRI to Conventional Imaging: Staging Pediatric Bone and Soft-Tissue Sarcomas.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Primary Mediastinal B-Cell Lymphoma and [18F]FDG PET/CT: What We Learned and What Is New.Hematology reports · 2025Review
- Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in children and adolescents.Blood advances · 2025Review
- Recurrent Biatrial Myxomas in Carney Complex with a Spinal Melanotic Schwannoma: Advocacy for a Rigorous Multidisciplinary Follow-Up.Case reports in cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been investigated by multiple authors as a radiation-free alternative to positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET-CT) in children with lymphoma.
objectiveTo evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of whole-body MRI compared to PET-CT for the staging of pediatric lymphoma.
methodsThe databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched for studies that reported the accuracy of whole-body MRI compared to PET-CT for lymphoma staging in children. Data was collected from included studies to formulate 2 × 2 contingency tables, including the number of true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn and the area under the curve (AUC) calculated. In addition, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns.
resultsA total of seven studies were included in the final analysis. Of these, six studies used unenhanced whole-body MRI. The pooled sensitivity of whole-body MRI-based staging was 95.8%, while the pooled specificity was 21.8%. The DOR for whole-body MRI was 1.19. For extranodal staging, the pooled sensitivity was 88.9%, specificity was 97.4%, and DOR was 25.29. The partial AUC for overall staging was 0.63, whereas that for extranodal staging stood at 0.88. Based on the QUADAS 2 tool, all seven studies were at risk of bias (six at high risk, one at unclear risk).
conclusionWhole-body MRI has high sensitivity for staging of pediatric lymphoma and may be a useful alternative to PET-CT.
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.