https://www.selleckchem.com/products/afuresertib-gsk2110183.html The local positive predictive value (PPV) was 26% for p16+ versus 54% for p16- (p = 0.01) and the regional PPV was 31% for p16+ versus 58% for p16- (p = 0.01). The local negative predictive value (NPV) was 100% regardless of p16 status and the regional NPV was 100% for p16+ versus 99% for p16- (p = 0.33). For p16+ cases, regional specificity was 76.2% versus 91.1% (p = 0.0003), local PPV was 0 versus 30% (p = 0.06) and the regional PPV was 12% versus 35% (p = 0.06) for FDG-PET/CT scans performed at ≤12 weeks versus >12 weeks. Five-year overall survival for those with CMR was 87% versus 51% without CMR (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Metabolic response on post-treatment FDG-PET/CT has excellent NPV regardless of p16 status. The PPV is significantly lower in those with p16+ versus p16- disease, with a significantly reduced regional specificity and a trend towards inferior predictive value if performed ≤12 weeks. CMR predicts for a significantly improved overall survival. Clinical trials designed to answer treatment-related questions typically compare an intervention group that receives a drug or other intervention to a control group that serves as a standard against which results of the intervention are evaluated. An observed divergence from this trend in research papers on breastfeeding led us to hypothesize that the majority of breastfeeding research designs assign breastfed children to an intervention group rather than the control group, although breastfeeding is a physiological way of feeding infants that may be considered as a general standard. Headlines and abstracts of 760 publications identified in 2 databases were checked, and a total of 68 systematic reviews were included in our review with the goal to see if breastfed children were mostly considered as the intervention or control group. Our review showed that in 79,41% of papers breastfed children were regarded as the intervention group. The results