SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of Node-RADS for lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Objective: To systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical value of the Node Reporting and Data System (Node-RADS) for lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer (RC). Methods: The study followed PRISMA-DTA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261372147). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were searched from inception to April 2026. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using QUADAS-2. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) area under the curve (AUC) were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and clinical utility were assessed using subgroup and sensitivity analyses (including exclusion of the post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy cohort), Deeks' funnel plot, and Fagan's nomogram based on the observed prevalence. Results: Seven studies involving 994 patients with RC were included, comprising 374 with and 620 without lymph node metastasis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.87), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.73-0.91), 5.15 (95% CI, 3.06-8.68), 0.22 (95% CI, 0.16-0.30), and 23.66 (95% CI, 12.92-43.34), respectively; the SROC AUC was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91). Excluding the clinically distinct post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy study yielded sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84), specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94), and AUC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.90), while specificity heterogeneity decreased from 89.07% to 69.79%. At the observed prevalence of 37.6%, a positive Node-RADS result increased the post-test probability to approximately 76%, whereas a negative result reduced it to approximately 12%. No significant funnel-plot asymmetry was detected, although publication bias could not be excluded because only seven studies were included. Conclusion: Node-RADS shows good diagnostic accuracy and clinical discriminatory ability for lymph node metastasis in RC and may serve as a standardized imaging-based adjunct for preoperative nodal assessment. However, substantial heterogeneity, Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/View/CRD420261372147, identifier CRD420261372147.
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.