The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Surgery of liver metastases can be effective, and the appropriate selection of surgical candidates relies first on imaging. Different techniques are available, but information on their relative performance is unclear. The aim of this overview is to assess the imaging modality performance in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for articles published from January 2000 to August 2008. Eligible trials had to be conducted on patients with diagnosis/suspicion of CRC liver metastases, comparing more than two modalities among MRI, computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography using fluoro‐18‐deoxyglucose (FDG‐PET), ultrasonography (US). Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity were calculated and pair‐wise comparisons were performed. Of 6030 screened articles, 25 were eligible. Sensitivity and specificity on a per‐patient basis for US, CT, MRI, and FDG‐PET were 63.0% and 97.6%, 74.8% and 95.6%, 81.1% and 97.2, and 93.8% and 98.7%, respectively. On a per‐lesion basis, sensitivity was 86.3%, 82.6%, 86.3%, and 86.0%, respectively. Specificity was reported in few studies. MRI showed a better sensitivity than CT in per‐patient (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47–0.99; P = 0.05) and in per‐lesion analysis (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.55–0.80; P < 0.0001). In per‐lesion analysis, the difference was higher when liver‐specific contrast agents were administered. Available evidence supports the MRI use for the detection of CRC liver metastases. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;31:19–31. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8 · Cited by 3,779
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163
Actual 10-Year Survival After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases Defines Cure
Tomlinson, J. S., Jarnagin, W. R., DeMatteo, R. P., Fong, Y., Kornprat, P., Gonen, M., Kemeny, N., Brennan, M. F., Blumgart, L. H., & D'Angelica, M. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.11.0833 · Cited by 1,187
Publication bias—a problem in interpreting medical data
Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A. (1988) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2982993 · Cited by 814
Colorectal Liver Metastases: CT, MR Imaging, and PET for Diagnosis—Meta-analysis
Bipat, S., van Leeuwen, M. S., Comans, E. F. I., Pijl, M. E. J., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Zwinderman, A. H., & Stoker, J. (2005) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2371042060 · Cited by 544
For the European EOB-study group, Hammerstingl, R., Huppertz, A., Breuer, J., Balzer, T., Blakeborough, A., Carter, R., Fusté, L. C., Heinz-Peer, G., Judmaier, W., et al. (2008) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0716-9 · Cited by 384
Huppertz, A., Haraida, S., Kraus, A., Zech, C. J., Scheidler, J., Breuer, J., Helmberger, T. K., & Reiser, M. F. (2005) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2342040278 · Cited by 370
Ruers, T. J. M., Langenhoff, B. S., Neeleman, N., Jager, G. J., Strijk, S. P., Wobbes, T., Corstens, F. H. M., & Oyen, W. J. G. (2002) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.20.2.388 · Cited by 293
Cited by
ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
Van Cutsem, E., Cervantes, A., Adam, R., Sobrero, A., Van Krieken, J. H., Aderka, D., Aranda Aguilar, E., Bardelli, A., Benson, A., Bodoky, G., et al. (2016) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw235 · Cited by 3,421
Brenner, H., Kloor, M., & Pox, C. P. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61649-9 · Cited by 2,762
Diagnostics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer
Kolligs, F. T. (2016) · Visceral Medicine · doi:10.1159/000446488 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- Authors
- Floriani, I., Torri, V., Rulli, E., Garavaglia, D., Compagnoni, A., Salvolini, L., & Giovagnoni, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12-20
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-31
- ISSN
- 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2586
- OpenAlex
- W1542026540
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 1.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmri.22010
- The paper
- Floriani, I., Torri, V., Rulli, E., Garavaglia, D., Compagnoni, A., Salvolini, L., & Giovagnoni, A. (2010). Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22010
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.
