The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Radiological Evaluation of Lymph Node Metastases in Patients With Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To apply meta-analysis to compare the utility of lymphangiography (LAG), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE literature search and manual reviews of article bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Studies selected included at least 20 patients with imaging-histologic correlation, described diagnostic criteria for lymph node metastasis, and presented data to allow calculation of contingency tables. DATA EXTRACTION: Independently by 2 investigators, stratified for stage of disease (early vs late) and for lymph node location (pelvic vs para-aortic). DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria for LAG, 17 for CT, and 10 for MR imaging. Summary receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant differences in the overall performance of LAG, CT, and MR imaging. There was, however, a trend toward better performance for MR imaging than for LAG or CT, both globally and when stratified for stage of disease or for lymph node location. Bayesian analysis of clinical utility showed only moderate increases in positive posttest probability of lymph node metastasis for all methods. Negative test results had a greater impact and, depending on the clinical setting, decreased the probability of lymph node metastasis from 15% to 44% (pretest) to 3% to 18% (posttest). CONCLUSIONS: The LAG, CT, and MR imaging perform similarly in the detection of lymph node metastasis from cervical cancer. As CT and MR imaging are less invasive than LAG and also assess local tumor extent, they should be considered the preferred adjuncts to clinical evaluation of invasive cervical cancer.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Large Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller Trials: How Do Their Results Compare?
Cappelleri, J. C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160054033 · Cited by 336
Cited by
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
“We will discuss both approaches and illustrate their use by reanalyzing the data from a published meta-analysis [20].”
MethodEmpirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues.
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.56.2.128 · Cited by 1,469
Chu, H., & Cole, S. R. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.011 · Cited by 708
metandi: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression
Harbord, R. M., & Whiting, P. (2009) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0900900203 · Cited by 453
Metadata
- Authors
- Scheidler, J.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1997-10-01
- Volume
- 278
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1096
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2144302969
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radiological Evaluation of Lymph Node Metastases in Patients With Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1997.03550130070040
- The paper
- Scheidler, J. (1997). Radiological Evaluation of Lymph Node Metastases in Patients With Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550130070040
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.