Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

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

Systematic Review of the Staging Performance of18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Esophageal Cancer

van Westreenen, H.L., Westerterp, M., Bossuyt, P.M.M., Pruim, J., Sloof, G.W., van Lanschot, J.J.B., Groen, H., Plukker, J.Th.M.·2004·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Despite the increasing number of publications concerning 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for staging of esophageal cancer and the increasing availability of this novel diagnostic modality, its exact role in preoperative staging of these tumors is still unknown. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET in preoperative staging of patients with esophageal cancer, and to calculate summary estimates of its sensitivity and specificity. Methods: The databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study. A meta-analysis of the reported sensitivity and specificity of each study was performed. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies had several design deficiencies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for the detection of locoregional metastases were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.69) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91), respectively. For distant metastases, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.76) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.0), respectively. Conclusion: FDG-PET showed moderate sensitivity and specificity for the detection of locoregional metastases, and reasonable sensitivity and specificity in detection of distant lymphatic and hematogenous metastases.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2004.01.083

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 370

Metadata

Authors
van Westreenen, H. L., Westerterp, M., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Pruim, J., Sloof, G. W., van Lanschot, J. J. B., Groen, H., & Plukker, J. T. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2004-09-15
Volume
22
Issue
18
Pages
3805-3812
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2130166062
Cited by
370
References
2
FWCI
3.81
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: Systematic Review of the Staging Performance of18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Esophageal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2004.01.083
The paper
van Westreenen, H. L., Westerterp, M., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Pruim, J., Sloof, G. W., van Lanschot, J. J. B., Groen, H., & Plukker, J. T. M. (2004). Systematic Review of the Staging Performance of18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Esophageal Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.01.083

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.