Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 364

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Cervical Node Metastases in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis

Kyzas, Panayiotis A., Evangelou, Evangelos, Denaxa-Kyza, Despina, Ioannidis, John P. A.·2008·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG PET) has been proposed to enhance preoperative assessment of cervical lymph node status in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Management is most controversial for patients with a clinically negative (cN0) neck. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in detecting lymph node metastases in patients with HNSCC. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies of the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET in patients with HNSCC. We determined sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves using hierarchical regression models. We also compared the performance of 18F-FDG PET with that of conventional diagnostic methods (ie, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration) by analyzing studies that had also used these diagnostic methods on the same patients. RESULTS: Across 32 studies (1236 patients), 18F-FDG PET sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72% to 85%) and specificity was 86% (95% CI = 83% to 89%). For cN0 patients, sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET was only 50% (95% CI = 37% to 63%), whereas specificity was 87% (95% CI = 76% to 93%). Overall, LR+ was 5.84 (95% CI = 4.59 to 7.42) and LR- was 0.24 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.33). In studies in which both 18F-FDG PET and conventional diagnostic tests were performed, sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET were 80% and 86%, respectively, and of conventional diagnostic tests were 75% and 79%, respectively. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET has good diagnostic performance in the overall pretreatment evaluation of patients with HNSCC but still does not detect disease in half of the patients with metastasis and cN0.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/djn125

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 364

Metadata

Authors
Kyzas, P. A., Evangelou, E., Denaxa-Kyza, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2008-05-21
Volume
100
Issue
10
Pages
712-720
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2134235092
Cited by
364
References
1
FWCI
4.28
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: 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Cervical Node Metastases in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djn125
The paper
Kyzas, P. A., Evangelou, E., Denaxa-Kyza, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Cervical Node Metastases in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn125

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.