Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35978813›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Differentiation between glioma recurrence and treatment effects using amide proton transfer imaging: A mini-Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis.

Kai Chen, Xi-Wen Jiang, Li-Jing Deng, Hua-Long She

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Are Dual-PhaseCancers · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors.

Kai ChenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Shenzhen Samii Medical Center, Shenzhen, China.
Xi-Wen JiangDepartment of Medical Imaging, Affiliated Hospital of Xiangnan University (Clinical College), Chenzhou, China.
Li-Jing DengDepartment of Neonatology, Shenzhen Third People's Hospital, Second Hospital Affiliated to Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China.
Hua-Long SheDepartment of Medical Imaging, Affiliated Hospital of Xiangnan University (Clinical College), Chenzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging as an emerging MRI approach has been used for distinguishing tumor recurrence (TR) and treatment effects (TEs) in glioma patients, but the initial results from recent studies are different. Aim: The aim of this study is to systematically review and quantify the diagnostic performance of APT in assessing treatment response in patients with post-treatment gliomas. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science was performed to retrieve related original studies. For the single and added value of APT imaging in distinguishing TR from TEs, we calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity by using Bayesian bivariate meta-analyses. Results: Six studies were included, five of which reported on single APT imaging parameters and four of which reported on multiparametric MRI combined with APT imaging parameters. For single APT imaging parameters, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75-0.92) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.74-0.97). For multiparametric MRI including APT, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.97) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.55-0.97), respectively. In addition, in the three studies reported on both single and added value of APT imaging parameters, the combined imaging parameters further improved diagnostic performance, yielding pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.80-0.97) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79-0.98), respectively, but the pooled sensitivity was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.65-0.93) and specificity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.61-0.94) for single APT imaging parameters. Conclusion: APT imaging showed high diagnostic performance in assessing treatment response in patients with post-treatment gliomas, and the addition of APT imaging to other advanced MRI techniques can improve the diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing TR from TE.

Indexed as

amide proton transfer (APT) imaginggliomapseudoprogressionradiation necrosis (RN)treatment effecttumor recurrence

Identifiers

PMID35978813
PMCPMC9376615

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.