↓ Skip to main content

Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging versus FDG-PET/CT for initial lymphoma staging: systematic review on diagnostic test accuracy studies

Overview of attention for article published in Sao Paulo Medical Journal, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging versus FDG-PET/CT for initial lymphoma staging: systematic review on diagnostic test accuracy studies
Published in
Sao Paulo Medical Journal, March 2015
DOI 10.1590/1516-3180.2014.8312810
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Regacini, Andrea Puchnick, David Carlos Shigueoka, Wagner Iared, Henrique Manoel Lederman

Abstract

Positron emission tomography with [18]F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG-PET/CT) has been advocated as the method of choice for lymphoma staging, since it enables whole-body analysis with high sensitivity for detection of affected areas and because it combines capacities for anatomical and functional assessment. With technological advances, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as an alternative to FDG-PET/CT. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI (WB-MRI) with FDG-PET/CT for lymphoma staging.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 7%
Researcher 1 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 25 83%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Psychology 1 3%
Unknown 25 83%