SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Application value of different imaging methods in the early diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the diagnostic value of ultrasound, multi-phase enhanced computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging of small hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: Experimental studies on diagnosing small hepatocellular carcinoma in four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, were comprehensively searched from October 2007 to October 2024. Relevant diagnostic accuracy data were extracted and a Bayesian model that combined direct and indirect evidence was used for analysis. Results: 16 original studies were included and data from 2,447 patients were collated to assess the diagnostic value of 10 different methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was good and there was no obvious publication bias. The pooled DOR of all diagnostic methods was 19.61, which was statistically significant (I Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024507883.
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.