SynthesisEuropean radiology2026
Comparison of [
Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- PET/CT imaging for assessment of tumor immunotherapy response: a new perspective on tumor metabolic reprogramming and immune escape.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Radiomics-based model for predicting neoadjuvant therapy response in esophageal cancer: Limitations and suggestions.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to systematically compare the efficacy of [ MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The study focused on comparing time-to-event hazard ratios (HRs) between patients categorized as complete response (CR) and non-complete response (non-CR) based on the two imaging assessment modalities. Eligible studies were selected based on the availability of both survival data and appropriate imaging methods, with special attention to the use of CT as part of PET/CT protocols in some cases. Additionally, PET and CT assessments were paired for each individual to analyze the efficacy of these imaging methods in detecting CR, assess the mismatch rate, and identify its causes.
resultsA review of 1445 candidate articles identified 15 eligible studies involving 952 patients. For CR and non-CR patients, the combined HR for PET was 4.10 (95% CI = 2.71-6.19), while for CT it was 1.25 (95% CI = 0.63-2.46). The high rate of PET-/CT+ discordance (48%, 95% CI: 42-53%) indicates that CT frequently misclassifies residual inflammation or fibrosis as active disease, whereas the absence of PET+/CT- cases (0%, 95% CI: 0-3%) highlights the high specificity of PET in detecting true residual tumors.
conclusionThis evidence supports prioritizing [ KEY POINTS: Question How do [
Indexed as
Identifiers
40689997What 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.