Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38226231›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Comparison of

Huixia Geng, Jinhao Li, Wanchun Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Huixia Geng.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, 030032, China.
Jinhao Li.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, 030032, China.
Wanchun Zhang.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, 030032, China.
Huazhong University of Science and Technology · CNTongji Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The utility of Methods: We analyzed the PET/CT imaging characteristics of 38 patients with a primary diagnosis of NK/T-cell lymphoma and also compared the ability of PET/CT to detect tumor lesions with conventional methods (CMs) (physical examination, computed tomography (CT) with intravenous contrast, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsies from primary sites, and bone marrow examinations)and their impact on staging and treatment options. Biopsy and clinical follow-up (including imaging) are the gold standard for diagnosis. Results: We analyzed PET/CT images of NK/T-cell lymphomas. We found that most of the primary lesions were located in the nasal cavity, with the sinuses and the posterior pharyngeal wall being the most common sites of adjacent invasion. The majority of cases involved cervical lymph nodes, and the distribution of affected lymph nodes between the cervical and extra-cervical regions was random. There was no discernible pattern to the locations of affected tissues and organs across the body. In total, 219 lesions (including 81 nodal lesions and 138 extranodal lesions) tested positive for malignancy. The number of positive lymph node lesions detected by PET/CT and CMs was 79 (97.5 %) and 62 (76.5 %), respectively ( Conclusion: Our findings indicate that

Indexed as

18F-FDG PET/CTExtranodal NK/T-cell lymphomaStaging

Identifiers

PMID38226231
PMCPMC10788511
OpenAlexW4389922176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.