FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2001261733> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2001261733 endingPage "358" @default.
• W2001261733 startingPage "350" @default.
• W2001261733 abstract "To carry out a meta-analysis to compare fluorine-18 deoxyglucose ((18)FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scintigraphy imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer.MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and other databases were searched for relevant original articles published between January 1995 and January 2010. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (18)FDG PET, MRI or (99m)Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy was carried out to detect bone metastases in patients with lung cancer; sufficient data were presented to construct a 2×2 contingency table; histopathological analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up and/or radiographic confirmation by multiple imaging modalities were used as the reference standard. Two reviewers independently extracted data. META-DiSc was used to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and the *Q index.In total, 14 articles that consisted of 34 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria. On a per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivity estimates for PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy were 91.9, 80.0 and 91.8%, respectively. The sensitivity for PET and bone scintigraphy were significantly higher than for MRI (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between PET and bone scintigraphy (P>0.05). The pooled specificity estimates for PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy were 96.8, 90.6 and 68.8%, respectively. The specificity for PET was significantly higher than for MRI and bone scintigraphy (P<0.05), and the specificity for MRI was significantly higher than for bone scintigraphy (P<0.05). The pooled DOR estimates for PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy were 365.5, 53.8 and 34.4, respectively. The DOR for PET was significantly higher than for MRI and bone scintigraphy (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between MRI and bone scintigraphy (P>0.05). The SROC curve for PET showed better diagnostic accuracy than for MRI and bone scintigraphy. The SROC curve for MRI was better than for bone scintigraphy. The *Q index estimates for PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy were 0.933, 0.903 and 0.857, respectively. The *Q index for PET and MRI were significantly higher than for bone scintigraphy (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between PET and MRI (P>0.05). On a per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity estimates for PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy were 95.0, 83.8 and 71.5%, respectively. The sensitivity for PET was significantly higher than for MRI and bone scintigraphy (P<0.05), and the sensitivity for MRI was significantly higher than for bone scintigraphy (P<0.05). The pooled specificity estimates for PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy were 94.6, 96.3 and 91.0%, respectively. The specificity for MRI was significantly higher than for PET and bone scintigraphy (P<0.05), and the specificity for PET was significantly higher than for bone scintigraphy (P<0.05). The pooled DOR estimates for PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy were 431.9, 158.1 and 9.0, respectively. The DOR for PET was significantly higher than for MRI and bone scintigraphy (P<0.05) and the DOR for MRI was significantly higher than for bone scintigraphy (P<0.05). The SROC curve for PET and MRI showed better diagnostic accuracy than for bone scintigraphy. There was no significant difference between PET and MRI. The *Q index estimates for PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy were 0.953, 0.962 and 0.778, respectively. The *Q index for PET and MRI were significantly higher than for bone scintigraphy (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between PET and MRI (P>0.05).(18)FDG PET was found to be the best modality to detect bone metastasis in patients with lung cancer, both on a per-patient basis and a per-lesion basis; MRI had the highest specificity on a per-lesion basis. For the subgroup analysis of (18)FDG PET, PET/computed tomography was shown to be better than PET and there were no significant differences between using (68)Ge and computed tomography for attenuation correction on a per-patient basis." @default.
• W2001261733 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2001261733 creator A5003301810 @default.
• W2001261733 creator A5006293284 @default.
• W2001261733 creator A5019524958 @default.
• W2001261733 creator A5044285390 @default.
• W2001261733 creator A5084328373 @default.
• W2001261733 creator A5091786108 @default.
• W2001261733 date "2011-06-01" @default.
• W2001261733 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2001261733 title "Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Bone Scintigraphy for the Diagnosis of Bone Metastases in Patients with Lung Cancer: Which One is the Best? – a Meta-analysis" @default.
• W2001261733 cites W1598326110 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W1852741248 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W1944909911 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W1954585625 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W1971348077 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W1989213522 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2000412588 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2010397777 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2017549161 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2019916607 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2033238186 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2033379221 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2043458700 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2056156740 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2056354468 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2056924009 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2064195686 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2067357246 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2072904498 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2079449116 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2093579014 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2103557574 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2120800556 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2122729706 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2126602143 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2140824213 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2142540473 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2147493587 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2151047141 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2165582741 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2167372685 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2169160087 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W2404770023 @default.
• W2001261733 cites W4255758841 @default.
• W2001261733 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2010.10.002" @default.
• W2001261733 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21094027" @default.
• W2001261733 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2001261733 type Work @default.
• W2001261733 sameAs 2001261733 @default.
• W2001261733 citedByCount "47" @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332012 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332013 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332014 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332015 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332016 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332017 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332018 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332019 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332020 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332021 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332022 @default.
• W2001261733 countsByYear W20012617332023 @default.
• W2001261733 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2001261733 hasAuthorship W2001261733A5003301810 @default.
• W2001261733 hasAuthorship W2001261733A5006293284 @default.
• W2001261733 hasAuthorship W2001261733A5019524958 @default.
• W2001261733 hasAuthorship W2001261733A5044285390 @default.
• W2001261733 hasAuthorship W2001261733A5084328373 @default.
• W2001261733 hasAuthorship W2001261733A5091786108 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C143409427 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C157481446 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C2775842073 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C2776049877 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C2776256026 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C2779902710 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C3020132585 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C58471807 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C126322002 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C126838900 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C142724271 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C143409427 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C157481446 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C2775842073 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C2776049877 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C2776256026 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C2779902710 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C2989005 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C3020132585 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C58471807 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C71924100 @default.
• W2001261733 hasConceptScore W2001261733C95190672 @default.

• next