Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

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

Scheidler, Juergen·1997·JAMA

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1997.03550130070040

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Scheidler, J.
Venue
JAMA
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.