Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41669404›Full record

ReviewQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026

Updated evidence on the accuracy of

Omar Abdulaziz Alharthi, Muhanad Mohammad Esailan, Rahaf Sameer Tammar, Ahmed Khalifah Alsaif, Juman Omar Alammar, Latifh Madallah Alharbi, Shatha K Alghamdi, Mohammed Khalid Bin Shuayl

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Long-term prognostic value ofCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Omar Abdulaziz AlharthiDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Muhanad Mohammad EsailanCollege of Medicine, Al Rayan National Colleges, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Rahaf Sameer TammarKing Fahad General Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed Khalifah AlsaifCollege of Medicine, Al Rayan National Colleges, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Juman Omar AlammarCollege of Medicine, AL Faisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Latifh Madallah AlharbiCollege of Medicine, Qassim University, Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
Shatha K AlghamdiCollege of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed Khalid Bin ShuaylGeneral Directorate of Prison's Health, Ministry of Interior, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Appropriate staging of esophageal cancer is crucial for optimizing treatment planning and enhancing patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted between 2017 and 2024 using MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of Results: A total of 22 studies were included in this review out of 182 initially selected studies. The sensitivity of Conclusions:

Indexed as

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT)diagnostic efficacyEsophageal carcinomametastasis neoadjuvant treatmentstaging

Identifiers

PMID41669404
PMCPMC12883571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.