ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
An optimal imaging modality based on different predictive risk factors for evaluating local staging of rectal cancer preoperatively: a comparative study of MRI and endorectal ultrasound.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Hybrid Lightweight Deep Learning Framework for Colorectal Cancer Detection Using an Adaptive Gated Feature Fusion and Grid Search-Based Hyperparameter Optimization.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Abdominal landmark detection and classification of fetal growth conditions on obstetric ultrasound: a gestational age-conditioned multi-task network.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Blood Radon Activity and Model-Derived Uranium Estimates in Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients from Southern Iraq.Biological trace element research · 2026Article
- Application of transrectal three-dimensional ultrasound for sub-staging of locally advanced rectal cancer at stage T3.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- PET Imaging in Vulvar Cancer: A Literature Review of the Current Evidence and Clinical Applications.Cancers · 2026Review
- Independent and sex-stratified association between microsatellite instability and peripheral hemoglobin in colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Development of an application for colorectal cancer prediction using SDC2 and TFPI2 methylation: an opportunity for early and noninvasive diagnosis in Latin-America.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate preoperative local staging of rectal cancer is essential for individualized treatment planning; however, the optimal imaging modality and personalized assessment approach remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the performance of different imaging modalities in the evaluation of local staging for rectal cancer and to identify factors related to their inaccurate predictions. Methods: From January 2018 to December 2021, tumors were staged by endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) (277 patients) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (243 patients). The predictive ability of the different imaging modalities was evaluated and compared, including pathologic T-staging and mesorectal fascia (MRF) status. The potential risk factors for accurate staging evaluation were analyzed, including body mass index (BMI) (≥23 or <23 kg/m Results: Compared with postoperative pathological results, MRI showed a better accuracy in both T-staging (83.53%) and MRF status (84.24%), and three-dimensional endorectal ultrasound (3D-ERUS) also demonstrated relatively high accuracy (83.33% in both T-staging and MRF status). The results demonstrated that NCRT was a risk factor for predictions of T-staging (78.05% Conclusions: For patients with a low BMI (BMI <23 kg/m
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.