Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32680829›Full record

SynthesisEuropean urology focus2021

Risk Prediction Models for Kidney Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Hannah Harrison, Rachel E Thompson, Zhiyuan Lin, Sabrina H Rossi, Grant D Stewart, Simon J Griffin, Juliet A Usher-Smith

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European urology focus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Hannah HarrisonThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: hh504@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Rachel E ThompsonUniversity of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Zhiyuan LinUniversity of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Sabrina H RossiDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Grant D StewartDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Simon J GriffinThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Juliet A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21464Cancer Research UK A21464Department of Health RM-SR-2017-09-009Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/6Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextEarly detection of kidney cancer improves survival; however, low prevalence means that population-wide screening may be inefficient. Stratification of the population into risk categories could allow for the introduction of a screening programme tailored to individuals.

objectiveThis review will identify and compare published models that predict the risk of developing kidney cancer in the general population. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in Medline and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, we extracted data onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search identified 15 281 articles. Sixty-two satisfied the inclusion criteria; performance measures were provided for 11 models. Some models predicted the risk of prevalent undiagnosed disease and others future incident disease. Six of the models had been validated, two using external populations. The most commonly included risk factors were age, smoking status, and body mass index. Most of the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating curve >0.7) in development and validation. Many models also had high specificity; however, several had low sensitivity. The highest performance was seen for the models using only biomarkers to detect kidney cancer; however, these were developed and validated in small case-control studies.

conclusionsWe identified a small number of risk models that could be used to stratify the population according to the risk of kidney cancer. Most exhibit reasonable discrimination, but a few have been validated externally in population-based studies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we looked at mathematical models predicting the likelihood of an individual developing kidney cancer. We found several suitable models, using a range of risk factors (such as age and smoking) to predict the risk for individuals. Most of the models identified require further testing in the general population to confirm their usefulness.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsBiomarkersHumansMass ScreeningPrognosisRisk FactorsBiomarkersEarly detectionKidney cancerScreeningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32680829
PMCPMC8642244
OpenAlexW3042514838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.