ReviewCureus2024
Deauville Score-Based Evaluation of Interim PET/CT in Follicular Lymphoma: A Prognostic Factor Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype, posing challenges in prognostication. While interim PET/CT is a recognized response assessment tool in other lymphoma subtypes, its prognostic value for FL remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the significance of interim PET results, which were assessed using the Deauville Score. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted across several databases, including studies that evaluated interim PET during frontline chemoimmunotherapy, with outcomes adjusted for other prognostic factors. Data extraction and risk of bias were performed independently by two authors. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using random-effects models, with leave-one-out sensitivity analyses to further assess the results. Four studies involving 427 patients were included. The pooled HR for Progression-Free Survival (PFS) was 2.88 (95% CI: 1.83-4.52; I² = 55.5%;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.