Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 621

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

Detection of Hepatic Metastases from Cancers of the Gastrointestinal Tract by Using Noninvasive Imaging Methods (US, CT, MR Imaging, PET): A Meta-Analysis

Kinkel, Karen, Lu, Ying, Both, Marcus, Warren, Robert S., Thoeni, Ruedi F.·2002·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare current noninvasive imaging methods (ultrasonography [US], computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance [MR] imaging, and (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG] positron emission tomography [PET]) in the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE literature search and review of article bibliographies and our institutional charts of patients with colorectal cancer identified data with histopathologic correlation or at least 6 months of patient follow-up. Two authors independently abstracted data sets and excluded data without contingency tables or data published more than once. Summary-weighted estimates of sensitivity were obtained and stratified according to specificity of less than 85% or 85% and higher. A covariate analysis was used to evaluate the influence of patient- or study-related factors on sensitivity. RESULTS: Among 111 data sets, nine US (509 patients), 25 CT (1,747 patients), 11 MR imaging (401 patients), and nine PET (423 patients) data sets met the inclusion criteria. In studies with a specificity higher than 85%, the mean weighted sensitivity was 55% (95% CI: 41, 68) for US, 72% (95% CI: 63, 80) for CT, 76% (95% CI: 57, 91) for MR imaging, and 90% (95% CI: 80, 97) for FDG PET. Results of pairwise comparison between imaging modalities demonstrated a greater sensitivity of FDG PET than US (P =.001), CT (P =.017), and MR imaging (P =.055). CONCLUSION: At equivalent specificity, FDG PET is the most sensitive noninvasive imaging modality for the diagnosis of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.2243011362

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 621

Metadata

Authors
Kinkel, K., Lu, Y., Both, M., Warren, R. S., & Thoeni, R. F.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2002-09
Volume
224
Issue
3
Pages
748-756
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2118718612
Cited by
621
References
1
FWCI
2.77
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: Detection of Hepatic Metastases from Cancers of the Gastrointestinal Tract by Using Noninvasive Imaging Methods (US, CT, MR Imaging, PET): A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2243011362
The paper
Kinkel, K., Lu, Y., Both, M., Warren, R. S., & Thoeni, R. F. (2002). Detection of Hepatic Metastases from Cancers of the Gastrointestinal Tract by Using Noninvasive Imaging Methods (US, CT, MR Imaging, PET): A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2243011362

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.