Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 261

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preoperative Staging of Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Comparison of Helical CT and Endoscopic US

Habermann, Christian R., Weiss, Florian, Riecken, Rasmus, Honarpisheh, Human, Bohnacker, Sabine, Staedtler, Carsten, Dieckmann, Christoph, Schoder, Volker, Adam, Gerhard·2004·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of helical computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients with a primary malignant gastric tumor (stage T2-T4) were preoperatively evaluated with both helical CT and endoscopic US within 3 days. Each tumor was staged according to the TNM classification system with both modalities. All patients subsequently underwent surgery. Results of CT and endoscopic US were compared with histologic staging of tumor invasion depth and regional lymph node metastasis. For comparison of CT and endoscopic US data, the marginal homogeneity test was used, and a P value of less than.05 was determined to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: In comparison with histologic results, CT achieved correct T staging in 39 patients (76%) and correct N staging in 35 patients (70%). The corresponding results for endoscopic US achieved correct T staging in 44 patients (86%) and correct N staging in 45 patients (90%). There was no significant difference between T staging (P =.55) and N staging (P >.99). Because of challenging detection of wall layers, correct T staging was difficult for CT and endoscopic US in the differentiation of T2 and T3 lesions. CONCLUSION: Compared with endoscopic US, helical CT focused on the stomach provides valuable results regarding T and N staging in patients with gastric cancer.

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.2302020828

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 261

Metadata

Authors
Habermann, C. R., Weiss, F., Riecken, R., Honarpisheh, H., Bohnacker, S., Staedtler, C., Dieckmann, C., Schoder, V., & Adam, G.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2004-02
Volume
230
Issue
2
Pages
465-471
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2037320229
Cited by
261
References
4
FWCI
10.67
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: Preoperative Staging of Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Comparison of Helical CT and Endoscopic US. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2302020828
The paper
Habermann, C. R., Weiss, F., Riecken, R., Honarpisheh, H., Bohnacker, S., Staedtler, C., Dieckmann, C., Schoder, V., & Adam, G. (2004). Preoperative Staging of Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Comparison of Helical CT and Endoscopic US. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2302020828

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.