Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37025033›Full record

ArticlePediatric blood & cancer2023

Comparison of the different imaging modalities used to image pediatric oncology patients: A COG diagnostic imaging committee/SPR oncology committee white paper.

Donald P Frush, Michael J Callahan, Brian D Coley, Helen R Nadel, R Paul Guillerman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric blood & cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [Pediatric sarcomas].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Donald P FrushDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Michael J CallahanDepartment of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Brian D ColeyDivision of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Helen R NadelPediatric Radiology, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
R Paul GuillermanDepartment of Radiology, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.
Boston Children's Hospital · USCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USDuke Medical Center · USLucile Packard Children's Hospital · USTexas Children's Hospital · US

Funding

NCTN BIQSFP ANBL1531 (NRT)U10CA180886 · NCI · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI Douglas S. Hawkins · 2014 to 2026
$390.6M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180886
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic imaging is essential in the diagnosis and management, including surveillance, of known or suspected cancer in children. The independent and combined roles of the various modalities, consisting of radiography, fluoroscopy, ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nuclear medicine (NM), are both prescribed through protocols but also function in caring for complications that may occur during or subsequent to treatment such as infection, bleeding, or organ compromise. Use of a specific imaging modality may be based on situational circumstances such as a brain CT or MR for a new onset seizure, chest CT for respiratory signs or symptoms, or US for gross hematuria. However, in many situations, there are competing choices that do not easily lend themselves to a formulaic approach as options; these situations depend on the contributions of a variety of factors based on a combination of the clinical scenario and the strengths and limitations of the imaging modalities. Therefore, an improved understanding of the potential influence of the imaging decision pathways in pediatric cancer care can come from comparison among the individual diagnostic imaging modalities. The purpose of the following material to is to provide such a comparison. To do this, pediatric imaging content experts for the individual modalities of radiography and fluoroscopy, US, CT, MRI, and NM will discuss the individual modality strengths and limitations.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSurface Plasmon ResonanceChildHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMedical OncologyRadionuclide ImagingTomography, X-Ray Computedimagingoncologypediatricradiology

Identifiers

PMID37025033
PMCPMC10652359
OpenAlexW4362692378

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.