SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Comparison of
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- External validation of the P-Score in the prospective, pre-biopsy DEPROMP cohort: integrated mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT risk stratification for prostate cancer detection.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Cost Analysis of PSMA-PET in the PROSPET-BX Trial.Cancers · 2026Article
- Evolution of the prostate cancer diagnostic paradigm: integrated evidence and clinical pathways from targeted biopsy to biopsy-free strategy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This meta-analysis is conducted to evaluate the comparative diagnostic efficacy of Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed and Embase databases to identify publications up to February 2024. The analysis included studies that evaluated the direct comparison of Results: The meta-analysis included 10 articles involving 505 patients, which revealed that both Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicates that Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=522438, identifier CRD42024522438.
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.