The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of fluor‐18‐deoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Abstract
Fluor‐18‐deoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) has emerged as a promising diagnostic modality in recurrent colorectal carcinoma. Whole‐body FDG‐PET may be an accurate diagnostic modality to determine whether patients with recurrent hepatic disease are suitable candidates for curative resection. Reports on the use of FDG‐PET in patients with recurrent colorectal carcinoma are scarce, especially those on colorectal liver metastases. To assess the usefulness of this emerging modality for the selection of patients to undergo resection for colorectal liver metastases, a systematic (meta)‐analysis of the current literature was conducted. In the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials, a traditional meta‐analysis could not be performed. An alternative strategy was designed to evaluate the current literature. After a literature search, an index score was devised to evaluate the articles with regard to the impact of FDG‐PET in patients with colorectal liver metastases. The index scored articles on several items and, as such, could be considered an objective approach for the assessment of diagnostic, nonrandomized clinical trials. The proposed index proved to be an independent instrument for judging several research questions and was used systematically to address the sensitivity, specificity, and clinical impact of FDG‐PET in patients with colorectal liver metastases. For FDG‐PET, the pooled sensitivity and specificity results were 88.0% and 96.1%, respectively, for hepatic disease and 91.5% and 95.4%, respectively, for extrahepatic disease. For the 6 articles that reported the highest scores on the index, the sensitivity and specificity of FDG‐PET for hepatic metastatic disease were 79.9% and 92.3%, respectively, and 91.2% and 98.4%, respectively, for extrahepatic disease, respectively. For computed tomography, the pooled sensitivity and specificity results were 82.7% and 84.1%, respectively, for hepatic lesions and 60.9% and 91.1%, respectively, for extrahepatic lesions. The percentage change in clinical management due to FDG‐PET was 31.6% (range, 20.0–58.0%) in the articles that scored above the mean and reported this item. For the 6 highest scoring studies, the percentage change in clinical management was 25.0% (range, 20.0–32.0%). Despite apparent omissions in the literature, the combined sensitivity and specificity of FDG‐PET clearly indicated that FDG‐PET has added value in the diagnostic workup of patients with colorectal liver metastases. FDG‐PET can be considered a useful tool in preoperative staging and produced superior results compared with conventional diagnostic modalities, especially for excluding or detecting extrahepatic disease. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.
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
Slim, K., Nini, E., Forestier, D., Kwiatkowski, F., Panis, Y., & Chipponi, J. (2003) · ANZ Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x · Cited by 7,603
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
Moher, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545
Abdalla, E. K., Vauthey, J.-N., Ellis, L. M., Ellis, V., Pollock, R., Broglio, K. R., Hess, K., & Curley, S. A. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000128305.90650.71 · Cited by 1,750
The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & Lijmer, J. G. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1 · Cited by 1,124
Kinkel, K., Lu, Y., Both, M., Warren, R. S., & Thoeni, R. F. (2002) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2243011362 · Cited by 621
Metadata
- Authors
- Wiering, B., Krabbe, P. F. M., Jager, G. J., Oyen, W. J. G., & Ruers, T. J. M.
- Venue
- Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11-28
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2658-2670
- ISSN
- 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0142
- OpenAlex
- W2136246167
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 16.43
- 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: The impact of fluor‐18‐deoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.21569
- The paper
- Wiering, B., Krabbe, P. F. M., Jager, G. J., Oyen, W. J. G., & Ruers, T. J. M. (2005). The impact of fluor‐18‐deoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21569
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.