ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
Reliability of [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([
methodsNine teams from seven centers, each team consisting of a nuclear medicine specialist and a radiologist, participated in the study. A total of 150 PET/CT scans were selected, and each was independently reviewed by two randomly assigned teams. Scans were performed six months post-treatment for scheduled recurrence assessment in stage Ia-IIIc NSCLC patients. Each scan was evaluated for suspicion of recurrence using two methods; without any pre-specified criteria (conventional assessment) and using pre-specified, qualitative criteria (Hopkins criteria). Both scoring methods were compared to a reference standard to assess accuracy.
resultsConventional assessment showed moderate interobserver agreement (κ = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.69; 79% overall agreement) for the diagnosis of recurrence. Hopkins criteria demonstrated substantial agreement (κ = 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.77; 87% overall agreement). There was no difference in the area under the curve (AUC) between conventional assessment (0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.88) and Hopkins criteria (0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.90) compared to the reference standard (p = 0.21).
conclusionsInterobserver agreement for [
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.