The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: Meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
We performed a meta‐analysis to compare diagnostic performances of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET or PET/CT), for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and the Cochrane Review database in December 2007. All articles were independently reviewed and selected by three evaluators. We estimated a summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve. The area under the curve (AUC), Q*, and pooled weighted estimates of sensitivity and specificity for each modality by patient‐based and region‐ or node‐based data analyses and conducted pair‐wise comparisons between modalities using the two‐sample Z‐test. Forty‐one of 768 initially identified studies were included in the meta‐analysis. In a patient‐based data analysis, PET or PET/CT showed the highest pooled sensitivity (82%) and specificity (95%), while CT showed 50% and 92%; and MRI, 56% and 91%, respectively. The AUC (0.9641) and Q* (0.9106) of PET or PET/CT were significantly higher than those of MRI (AUC = 0.8270; Q* = 0.7599), both P < 0.001. In region‐ or node‐based data analysis, sensitivities of CT (52%) and PET or PET/CT (54%) were higher than that of MRI (38%), P < 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively, while specificities of MRI (97%) and PET or PET/CT (97%) were higher than that of CT (92%), both P < 0.001. The AUC and Q* showed no significant difference among CT, MRI, and PET or PET/CT. PET or PET/CT had an overall higher diagnostic performance than did CT or MRI in detecting metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer. (Cancer Sci 2010)
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
Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000
Parkin, D. M., Bray, F., Ferlay, J., & Pisani, P. (2001) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.1440 · Cited by 3,721
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data
Zamora, J., Abraira, V., Muriel, A., Khan, K., & Coomarasamy, A. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-31 · Cited by 1,883
Moses, L. E., Shapiro, D., & Littenberg, B. (1993) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780121403 · Cited by 1,405
Lymph Node Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Carcinoma of the Cervix
Grigsby, P. W., Siegel, B. A., & Dehdashti, F. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2001.19.17.3745 · Cited by 471
Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy
Irwig, L., Macaskill, P., Glasziou, P., & Fahey, M. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)00099-c · Cited by 467
Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy from Multiple Conflicting Reports: A New Meta-analytic Method
Littenberg, B., & Moses, L. E. (1993) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9301300408 · Cited by 434
Rose, P. G., Adler, L. P., Rodriguez, M., Faulhaber, P. F., Abdul-Karim, F. W., & Miraldi, F. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1999.17.1.41 · Cited by 345
Radiological Evaluation of Lymph Node Metastases in Patients With Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis
Scheidler, J. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550130070040 · Cited by 320
Sironi, S., Buda, A., Picchio, M., Perego, P., Moreni, R., Pellegrino, A., Colombo, M., Mangioni, C., Messa, C., & Fazio, F. (2006) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2381041799 · Cited by 315
Cited by
Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri
Bhatla, N., Berek, J. S., Cuello Fredes, M., Denny, L. A., Grenman, S., Karunaratne, K., Kehoe, S. T., Konishi, I., Olawaiye, A. B., Prat, J., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.12749 · Cited by 1,048
Empirical evidence of the importance of comparative studies of diagnostic test accuracy
Takwoingi, Y., Leeflang, M. M. G., & Deeks, J. J. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-7-201304020-00006 · Cited by 187
Metadata
- Authors
- Choi, H. J., Ju, W., Myung, S. K., & Kim, Y.
- Venue
- Cancer Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-05-19
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1471-1479
- ISSN
- 1347-9032 (ISSN-L)
- 1349-7006
- OpenAlex
- W2037617828
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 8.92
- 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: Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: Meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01532.x
- The paper
- Choi, H. J., Ju, W., Myung, S. K., & Kim, Y. (2010). Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: Meta‐analysis. Cancer Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01532.x
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.