The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Metastases from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Mediastinal Staging in the 1990s—Meta-analytic Comparison Of PET and CT
Abstract
PURPOSE: To meta-analytically compare 2-[fluorine 18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) for the demonstration of mediastinal nodal metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: English-language reports on the diagnostic performance of PET (14 studies, 514 patients) and/or CT (29 studies, 2,226 patients) for demonstration of mediastinal nodal metastases from NSCLC were selected by using the MEDLINE database. In eligible studies, an objective diagnostic standard was used, data were presented to allow recalculation of contingency tables, and established diagnostic criteria were used for abnormal test results. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated. RESULTS: Pooled point estimates of diagnostic performance and summary ROC curves indicated that PET was significantly more accurate than CT for demonstration of nodal metastases (P < .001). Mean sensitivity and specificity (+/- 95% CI) were 0.79 +/- 0.03 and 0.91 +/- 0.02, respectively, for PET and 0.60 +/- 0.02 and 0.77 +/- 0.02, respectively, for CT. The log odds ratios were 1.79 (95% CI: 1.49, 2.09) for CT and 3.77 (95% CI: 2.77, 4.77) for PET (P < .001). Subgroup analyses did not alter findings. CONCLUSION: PET is superior to CT for mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer, independent of performance index or clinical context of PET imaging.
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
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Cited by
van Tinteren, H., Hoekstra, O. S., Smit, E. F., van den Bergh, J. H., Schreurs, A. J., Stallaert, R. A., van Velthoven, P. C., Comans, E. F., Diepenhorst, F. W., Verboom, P., et al. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08352-6 · Cited by 851
(2005) · PubMed · Cited by 612
Shim, S. S., Lee, K. S., Kim, B.-T., Chung, M. J., Lee, E. J., Han, J., Choi, J. Y., Kwon, O. J., Shim, Y. M., & Kim, S. (2005) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2363041310 · Cited by 444
(2004) · PubMed · Cited by 211
Vesselle, H., Salskov, A., Turcotte, E., Wiens, L., Schmidt, R., Jordan, C. D., Vallières, E., & Wood, D. E. (2008) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1097/jto.0b013e31818307a7 · Cited by 165
Metadata
- Authors
- Dwamena, B. A., Sonnad, S. S., Angobaldo, J. O., & Wahl, R. L.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 213
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 530-536
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2069752504
- Cited by
- 649
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.80
- 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: Metastases from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Mediastinal Staging in the 1990s—Meta-analytic Comparison Of PET and CT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv46530
- The paper
- Dwamena, B. A., Sonnad, S. S., Angobaldo, J. O., & Wahl, R. L. (1999). Metastases from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Mediastinal Staging in the 1990s—Meta-analytic Comparison Of PET and CT. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv46530
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.