SynthesisTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2026
Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Semi-Quantitative Metrics of
Synthesis in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesSkull base osteomyelitis and necrotising otitis externa require prolonged antibiotic therapy, yet determining optimal treatment cessation timing remains challenging. Conventional imaging modalities demonstrate persistent abnormalities beyond infection resolution, confounding treatment decisions. This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of
methodsWe conducted a systematic review following PRISMA-DTA guidelines, searching MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to November 2025. Studies evaluating
resultsEight studies comprising 154 lesions contributed to the primary analysis. Pooled sensitivity was 95.2% (95% credible interval 85.6-99.0%) and pooled specificity was 89.1% (95% credible interval 70.7-96.7%). The positive likelihood ratio was 8.7 (95% credible interval 3.2-28.4) and negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95% credible interval 0.01-0.17), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 172.0. Seven studies evaluating detection rate at initial presentation yielded a pooled rate of 96.1% (95% confidence interval 91.3-98.3%). SUVmax was the most frequently used metabolic parameter.
conclusions
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.