Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 277

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 access
Floriani, Irene, Torri, Valter, Rulli, Eliana, Garavaglia, Daniela, Compagnoni, Anna, Salvolini, Luca, Giovagnoni, Andrea·2010·Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
DOI 10.1002/jmri.22010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmri.22010

Cites

42 of 42 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

Cites

Cited by

See all 277

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
DOI
10.1002/jmri.22010
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

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.