Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33802699›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Radiomics in Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Julia Mühlbauer, Luisa Egen, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Maurizio Grilli, Margarete T Walach, Niklas Westhoff, Philipp Nuhn, Fabian C Laqua, Bettina Baessler, Maximilian C Kriegmair

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. State of the art review of AI in renal imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
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

10 authors.

Julia MühlbauerDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Luisa EgenDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Maurizio GrilliLibrary of the Medical Faculty Mannheim of the University of Heidelberg, University Medical Center Mannheim, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7649-7242
Margarete T WalachDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Niklas WesthoffDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Philipp NuhnDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Fabian C LaquaInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Bettina BaesslerInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3244-3864
Maximilian C KriegmairDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiomics may increase the diagnostic accuracy of medical imaging for localized and metastatic RCC (mRCC). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Doing so, we comprehensively searched literature databases until May 2020. Studies investigating the diagnostic value of radiomics in differentiation of localized renal tumors and assessment of treatment response to ST in mRCC were included and assessed with respect to their quality using the radiomics quality score (RQS). A total of 113 out of 1098 identified studies met the criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis. Median RQS of all studies was 13.9% (5.0 points, IQR 0.25-7.0 points), and RQS increased over time. Thirty studies were included into the quantitative synthesis: For distinguishing angiomyolipoma, oncocytoma or unspecified benign tumors from RCC, the random effects model showed a log odds ratio (OR) of 2.89 (95%-CI 2.40-3.39,

Indexed as

computed tomographymachine learningmagnetic resonance imagingradiomicsrenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID33802699
PMCPMC8002585

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.