SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Comparative analysis of elastosonography and 18 F-FDG PET/CT in differentiating benign and malignant salivary gland tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Diagnostic efficacy of VELscope in oral potentially malignant disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Parotid Gland Mass as the First Manifestation of Recurrent Metastatic Breast Carcinoma: Diagnostic Pitfalls and Therapeutic Considerations in Oral-Maxillofacial Care.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of elastosonography and 18 F-FDG PET/CT in differentiating between benign and malignant salivary gland tumors.
methodsUsing PICOS criteria, experimental and observational research evaluating elastosonography or 18 F-FDG PET/CT for differentiating benign and malignant salivary gland tumors were included. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, initially in July 2024 and updated in February 2025. A manual search for relevant gray literature was also performed. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment using QUADAS-2 were conducted independently by reviewers.
resultsA total of 26 studies with 1609 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity of elastosonography and 18 F-FDG PET/CT in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant salivary gland tumors were 0.75 (95% CI 0.65-0.84) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.78-0.90), specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.69-0.87) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.69-0.96), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for elastosonography and 18 F-FDG PET/CT were 0.83 and 0.92 and there is a statistical difference between the two imaging modalities (Z = 2.77, P < 0.01). Fagan nomogram indicated that when the pre-test probability was set at 20%, the post-test probability for elastosonography and 18 F-FDG PET/CT could increase to 50% and 65%.
conclusionIn differentiating between benign and malignant salivary gland tumors, 18 F-FDG PET/CT exhibits a superior AUC compared to elastosonography, suggesting that, despite its current limited use in the initial workup of salivary gland tumors, there may be a strong argument for its increased adoption in clinical practice. Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that the findings of this meta-analysis rely on studies with limited sample sizes. More extensive prospective studies are warranted to validate these results further.
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.