| Title |
Comparison of diagnosing and staging accuracy of PET (CT) and MIBG on patients with neuroblastoma: Systemic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Medical Science, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11596-017-1785-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jia Xia, Hang Zhang, Qun Hu, Shuang-you Liu, Liu-qing Zhang, Ai Zhang, Xiao-ling Zhang, Ya-qin Wang, Ai-guo Liu |
| Abstract |
To perform a systemic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of PET (CT) and metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) for diagnosing neuroblastoma (NB), electronic databases were searched as well as relevant references and conference proceedings. The diagnostic accuracy of MIBG and PET (CT) was calculated for NB, primary NB, and relapse/metastasis of NB based on their sensitivity, specificity, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUSROC) in terms of per-lesion and per-patient data. A total of 40 eligible studies comprising 1134 patients with 939 NB lesions were considered for the meta-analysis. For the staging of NB, the per-lesion AUSROC value of MIBG was lower than that of PET (CT) [0.8064±0.0414 vs. 0.9366±0.0166 (P<0.05)]. The per-patient AUSROC value of MIBG and PET (CT) for the diagnosis of NB was 0.8771±0.0230 and 0.6851±0.2111, respectively. The summary sensitivity for MIBG and PET (CT) was 0.79 and 0.89, respectively. The summary specificity for MIBG and PET (CT) was 0.84 and 0.71, respectively. PET (CT) showed higher per-lesion accuracy than MIBG and might be the preferred modality for the staging of NB. On the other hand, MIBG has a comparable diagnosing performance with PET (CT) in per-patient analysis but shows a better specificity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Current Medical Science
#409
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,445
of 338,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Medical Science
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.