ReviewTranslational cancer research2023
Comparison of the diagnostic value of 18F-NaF PET/CT and
Review in Translational cancer research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging the hallmarks of cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Challenges of Bone Scintigraphy in Assessment of Osseous Metastases in Prostate Cancer: Why it is Time to Reconsider Role ofMolecular imaging and biology · 2026Review
- Theranostics of Bone Metastases: The Role and Prospects of Bisphosphonate Radiopharmaceuticals.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Current Position of Nuclear Medicine Imaging in Primary Bone Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Cartilage-SpecificBiomedicines · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor: EANM position paper on challenges and opportunities of full-ring 360° CZT bone imaging: it's time to let go of planar whole-body bone imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Comparison of the relative diagnostic performance ofFrontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone scintigraphy, the standard tool for detecting bone metastases has some insufficiencies; thus, supplementary imaging techniques are needed. This study is a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies reporting and comparing the diagnostic efficacy of 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and Methods: Literature related to the diagnosis of bone metastases using 18F-NaF PET/CT and Results: Finally, 11 articles, consisting of 1,085 patients and 1,782 lesions, were included. At the patient level (11 articles), the results were pooled SEN =0.92 and SPE =0.96 for PET/CT, SEN =0.80 and SPE =0.90 for SPECT. The AUC of PET/CT [0.98 (0.96-0.99)] was higher than that of SPECT [0.92 (0.89-0.94), P<0.05]. At the lesion level (6 articles), the results were pooled SEN =0.96 and SPE =0.98 for PET/CT, SEN =0.76 and SPE =0.94 for SPECT. The AUC of PET/CT [0.99 (0.98-1.00)] was higher than that of SPECT [0.94 (0.92-0.96); P<0.05]. Statistical heterogeneity existed, and meta-regression showed that, at patient-based level, the study design type, tumor character, and the selection blinding method were the main sources of heterogeneity. Furthermore, both PET/CT and SPECT had superior SEN for osteogenic metastases than non-osteogenic metastases (P=0.01). At the lesion level, tumor character was a source of heterogeneity accompanied by an increased SEN for osteogenic metastases, and the SEN for SPECT combined with CT was improved [SEN =0.87 (0.68-1.00), P=0.03]. Conclusions: 18F-NaF PET/CT has a higher SEN and SPE than
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.