Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy

Isles, M.G., McConkey, C., Mehanna, H.M.·2008·Clinical Otolaryngology

Abstract

Objectives: This review examines the effectiveness of positron emission tomography (PET) in the detection of recurrent or persistent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Design: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of trials of PET for detecting residual/recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated by radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Trials were quality assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool for assessing diagnostic accuracy studies. Quantitative data were extracted and a bivariate random effects model used to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity. Setting: Tertiary referral head and neck centre. Participants: Prospective and retrospective studies, excluding reviews, which included patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who had fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the post‐treatment phase following primary treatment by radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Main outcomes measures: Quality assessment, sensitivity, specificity, false positive rates, false negative rates, positive and negative predictive values. Results: Twenty‐seven of 1871 identified studies were eligible for inclusion. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET for detecting residual or recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma were 94% [95% confidence interval (CI), 87–97%] and 82% (95% CI, 76–86%) respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI, 68–82%), and 95% (95% CI, 92–97%) respectively. Sensitivity was greater for scans performed 10 weeks or more after treatment. Conclusions: Positron emission tomography is highly accurate in this role. However it is less sensitive early after treatment and has poor anatomical detail. PET may reduce the requirement for check endoscopies and planned neck dissections. A protocol for its use in post‐treatment surveillance is proposed.

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.1749-4486.2008.01688.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 321

Metadata

Authors
Isles, M. G., McConkey, C., & Mehanna, H. M.
Venue
Clinical Otolaryngology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-06
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
210-222
ISSN
  • 0307-7772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-4478
  • 1749-4486
OpenAlex
W1969746706
Cited by
321
References
2
FWCI
3.79
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: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01688.x
The paper
Isles, M. G., McConkey, C., & Mehanna, H. M. (2008). A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Clinical Otolaryngology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01688.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.