Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38110755›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2023

[

Peter Iversen, Stine Kramer, Andreas Ebbehoj, Esben Søndergaard, Kirstine Stochholm, Per Løgstrup Poulsen, Karin Hjorthaug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparison ofMolecular imaging and biology · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Peter IversenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark. peter.iversen@clin.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2455-5142
Stine KramerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Andreas EbbehojDepartment of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Esben SøndergaardDepartment of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Kirstine StochholmDepartment of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Per Løgstrup PoulsenDepartment of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Karin HjorthaugDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth [

resultsIn total, 113 patients were included (97 suspected of primary PPGL and 16 suspected of recurrence). Of the 97 patients, 51 had pheochromocytomas (PCC) (in total 55 lesions) and 6 had paragangliomas (PGL) (in total 7 lesions). FDOPA detected and correctly localized all 55 PCC, while DOTATOC only detected 25 (sensitivity 100% vs. 49%, p < 0.0001; specificity 95% vs. 98%, p = 1.00). The negative predictive value (100% vs. 63%, p < 0.001) and diagnostic accuracy (98% vs. 70%, p < 0.01) were higher for FDOPA compared to DOTATOC. FDOPA identified 6 of 6 patients with hormone producing PGL, of which one was negative on DOTATOC. Diagnostic performances of FDOPA and DOTATOC were similar in the 16 patients with previous PPGL suspected of recurrence.

conclusionsFDOPA is superior to DOTATOC for localization of PCC. In contrast to DOTATOC, FDOPA also identified all PGL but with a limited number of patient cases.

Indexed as

DOTATOCFDOPAParagangliomaPCPCCPETPGLPheochromocytomaPPGL

Identifiers

PMID38110755
PMCPMC10728412

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.