Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bastiaannet, E, Groen, H, Jager, P.L, Cobben, D.C.P, van der Graaf, W.T.A, Vaalburg, W, Hoekstra, H.J·2004·Cancer Treatment Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004

Cites

45 of 45 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

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Nijhuis, 1999, Epidemiological aspects of soft tissue sarcomas (STS) – consequences for the design of clinical STS trials, Eur. J. Cancer, 35, 1705, 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00152-5 · doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00152-5
  2. Mijnhout, 2001, Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in melanoma patients, Cancer, 91, 1530, 10.1002/1097-0142(20010415)91:8<1530::AID-CNCR1162>3.0.CO;2-# · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20010415)91:8<1530::aid-cncr1162>3.0.co;2-#
  3. Umesaki, 2001, Positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose of uterine sarcoma: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and power Doppler imaging, Gynecol. Oncol., 80, 372, 10.1006/gyno.2000.6081 · doi:10.1006/gyno.2000.6081
  4. Schwarzbach, 2001, Assessment of soft tissue lesions suspicious for liposarcoma by F18- deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), Anticancer Res., 21, 3609
  5. Aoki, 1999, FDG-PET in differential diagnosis and grading of chondrosarcomas, J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr., 23, 603, 10.1097/00004728-199907000-00022 · doi:10.1097/00004728-199907000-00022
  6. Franzius, 2000, Evaluation of chemotherapy response in primary bone tumors with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography compared with histologically assessed tumor necrosis, Clin. Nucl. Med., 25, 874, 10.1097/00003072-200011000-00004 · doi:10.1097/00003072-200011000-00004
  7. Garcia, 1996, Comparison of fluorine-18-FDG PET and technetium-99m-MIBI SPECT in evaluation of musculoskeletal sarcomas, J. Nucl. Med., 37, 1476

Cited by

See all 294

Metadata

Authors
Bastiaannet, E., Groen, H., Jager, P. L., Cobben, D. C. P., van der Graaf, W. T. A., Vaalburg, W., & Hoekstra, H. J.
Venue
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-02
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
83-101
ISSN
0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004
OpenAlex
W2112637648
Cited by
294
References
45
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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 value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004
The paper
Bastiaannet, E., Groen, H., Jager, P. L., Cobben, D. C. P., van der Graaf, W. T. A., Vaalburg, W., & Hoekstra, H. J. (2004). The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treatment Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004

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.