Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 254

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Selman, T. J., Mann, C., Zamora, J., Appleyard, T.-L., Khan, K.·2008·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lymph node status is the key to determining the prognosis and treatment of cervical cancer. However, it cannot be assessed clinically, and testing for nodal metastasis is controversial. We sought to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy literature on sentinel node biopsy, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography to evaluate the accuracy of each index test in determining lymph node status in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), Medion (1980-2006) and the Cochrane library (Issue 2, 2006) for relevant articles. We also manually searched the reference lists from primary articles and reviews, and we contacted experts in the field for conference abstracts and unpublished studies. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of accuracy indices, and we performed meta-regression analysis to test the effect of study quality on diagnostic accuracy and to identify other sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: We included 72 relevant primary studies, involving a total of 5042 women, in our analysis. We found that, in determining lymph node status, sentinel node biopsy had a pooled positive likelihood ratio of 40.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.6-67.6) and a pooled negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (95% CI 0.14-0.24). The pooled positive likelihood ratios (and 95% CI) were 15.3 (7.9-29.6) for positron emission tomography, 6.4 (4.9-8.3) for magnetic resonance imaging and 4.3 (3.0-6.2) for computed tomography. The pooled negative likelihood ratios (and 95% CIs) were 0.27 (0.11-0.66) for positron emission tomography, 0.50 (0.39-0.64) for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.58 (0.48-0.70) for computed tomography. Using a 27% pretest probability of lymph node metastasis among all cases (regardless of stage), we found that a positive sentinel node biopsy result increased post-test probability to 94% (95% CI 90%-96%), whereas a positive finding on positron emission tomography increased it to 85% (75%-92%). INTERPRETATION: Sentinel node biopsy has greater accuracy in determining lymph node status among women with primary cervical cancer than current commonly used imaging methods.

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.071124

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 254

Metadata

Authors
Selman, T. J., Mann, C., Zamora, J., Appleyard, T.-L., & Khan, K.
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2008-03-25
Volume
178
Issue
7
Pages
855-862
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2125122226
Cited by
254
References
3
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1503/cmaj.071124
The paper
Selman, T. J., Mann, C., Zamora, J., Appleyard, T.-L., & Khan, K. (2008). Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071124

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.