Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31350588›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement.

Ji Eun Park, Donghyun Kim, Ho Sung Kim, Seo Young Park, Jung Youn Kim, Se Jin Cho, Jae Ho Shin, Jeong Hoon Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 182 papers, 29 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
182citing papers in PubMed, 29 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

182 citing papers in PubMed, 29 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Guideline
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

122 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ji Eun Park *Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 43 Olympic-ro 88, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Donghyun Kim *Department of Radiology, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Busan, South Korea.
Ho Sung KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 43 Olympic-ro 88, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. radhskim@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9477-7421
Seo Young ParkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Jung Youn KimDepartment of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Se Jin ChoDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 43 Olympic-ro 88, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Jae Ho ShinSt. Vincent Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, South Korea.
Jeong Hoon KimDepartment of Neurosurgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

Ministry of Education NRF-2017R1A2A2A05001217Ministry of Education NRF-2017R1C1B2007258
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate radiomics studies according to radiomics quality score (RQS) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) to provide objective measurement of radiomics research. MATERIALS AND

methodsPubMed and Embase were searched for studies published in high clinical imaging journals until December 2018 using the terms "radiomics" and "radiogenomics." Studies were scored against the items in the RQS and TRIPOD guidelines. Subgroup analyses were performed for journal type (clinical vs. imaging), intended use (diagnostic vs. prognostic), and imaging modality (CT vs. MRI), and articles were compared using Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney analysis.

resultsSeventy-seven articles were included. The mean RQS score was 26.1% of the maximum (9.4 out of 36). The RQS was low in demonstration of clinical utility (19.5%), test-retest analysis (6.5%), prospective study (3.9%), and open science (3.9%). None of the studies conducted a phantom or cost-effectiveness analysis. The adherence rate for TRIPOD was 57.8% (mean) and was particularly low in reporting title (2.6%), stating study objective in abstract and introduction (7.8% and 16.9%), blind assessment of outcome (14.3%), sample size (6.5%), and missing data (11.7%) categories. Studies in clinical journals scored higher and more frequently adopted external validation than imaging journals.

conclusionsThe overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies is insufficient. Scientific improvements need to be made to feature reproducibility, analysis of clinical utility, and open science categories. Reporting of study objectives, blind assessment, sample size, and missing data is deemed to be necessary. KEY POINTS: • The overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies is insufficient. • The RQS was low in demonstration of clinical utility, test-retest analysis, prospective study, and open science. • Room for improvement was shown in TRIPOD in stating study objective in abstract and introduction, blind assessment of outcome, sample size, and missing data categories.

Indexed as

HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasmsPrognosisProspective StudiesQuality of Health CareReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyMachine learningMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasmQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31350588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.