ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2024
Prognostic significance of
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Predicting the unpredictable: prognostic and predictive power of FAPI-PET imaging in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Head-to-head comparative study of [Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Recent advances in theranostics and oncology PET: emerging radionuclides and targets.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- FAPI radiopharmaceuticals in nuclear oncology and theranostics of solid tumours: are we nearer to surrounding the hallmarks of cancer?Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison ofScientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare
methodsPatients with bone metastases who underwent both
resultsA total of 75 eligible patients with 139 bone lesions were included in this study. The median age of the patients was 55 (30-83) and 48(64%) patients were newly diagnosed. The primary lesion median
conclusions
Indexed as
Identifiers
38684594What 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.