ReviewMedical & biological engineering & computing2020
An overview of non-invasive imaging modalities for diagnosis of solid and cystic renal lesions.
Review in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Granular Machine Learning-Based Computed Tomography Contrast Phase Prediction.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Solid Renal Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Localized cystic kidney disease: a case report unveiling clinical and histopathological challenges.Autopsy & case reports · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence for renal cancer: From imaging to histology and beyond.Asian journal of urology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Renal imaging is an essential investigative tool and preliminary task for determining a suitable sanative option for the treatment of kidney cancer. In recent decades, with the increasing usage of abdominal imaging, there is an upsurge in the number of adrenal incidentalomas. Among these accidentally revealed lesions, most of them are complex that warrant immediate aggressive treatment planning due to their malignant potential. The guidelines given by the American Urological Association (AUA), American College of Radiology (ACR), and European Association of Urology (EAU) vary concerning the use of ideal preliminary imaging modality to investigate the patients with suspected flank pain, hematuria, or palpable mass in the abdomen. Initially, an effort has been made to discriminate cystic and solid renal lesions which are helpful in separating benign and malignant nature as different imaging patterns are observed on distinct imaging modalities for solid and cystic renal lesions. Various attempts have been made to improve the accuracy of cancer diagnosis by employing different imaging modalities. The primary aim of this article is to study the capabilities of different imaging techniques for detecting and differentiating solid and cystic lesions to facilitate treatment planning based on computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Further, the advantages, disadvantages, new advancements, and future scope of each of the imaging modality have also been highlighted so that one can make a correct choice of imaging technique for diagnosis of a specific type of lesion. Additionally, some recommendations have also been mentioned by listing the requirements for the perfect imaging modality. Graphical abstract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.