SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) in Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis of Oral Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can we now save the neck of OSCC T1-T2 patients? A narrative review of whether experimental techniques are on the way to clinical application.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026Review
- Multimodal imaging of cervical lymphadenopathy: diagnostic value and clinical applications.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) compared to conventional imaging modalities and histopathological investigation in cervical lymph node metastasis in adults through a novel meta- analysis.
methodThe review protocol is registered under PROSPERO(CRD42021225704) and performed in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis - Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA- DTA) checklist. Databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost were searched from 2000 to 2023 to identify the diagnostic potential of CECT in cervical lymph node metastasis of oral carcinoma. True-positive, false-positive, true-negative, false-negative, sensitivity, specificity values were extracted or calculated if not present for each study. Quality of selected studies was evaluated based on Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS)- 2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed in Meta-Disc 1.4 software and Review Manager 5.3 using a bivariate model parameter for the pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity. Additional analysis was performed in terms of positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) with Area Under Curve (AUC) and p<0.05 as statistically significant.
resultsSix studies were included for qualitative synthesis and as well as for meta-analysis. Two studies had high risk of bias while four studies had low risk of bias. 651 patients underwent CECT and were taken for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that CECT for diagnosing cervical lymph node metastasis had a pooled sensitivity of 71%, pooled specificity of 14% with 60% Area Under Curve (AUC). +LR of 0.84, -LR of 1.36 and DOR of 0.59.
conclusionCECT has an overall fair diagnostic ability and is a valid and reliable tool in diagnosing the target condition overcoming high reliance on master specialized capacity for their execution and understanding like other conventional imaging techniques. CECT can be concluded for secondary level of prevention for cervical node metastasis of oral carcinoma under early diagnosis and prompt treatment. However, further standardized accuracy studies are indicated to improve the overall diagnostic accuracy of CECT.
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.