Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

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 access
Choi, Hyuck Jae, Ju, Woong, Myung, Seung Kwon, Kim, Yeol·2010·Cancer Science

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01532.x

Cites

20 of 20 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 20 references

Cited by

See all 317

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.