ReviewThe British journal of radiology2022
Radiomics quality score in renal masses: a systematic assessment on current literature.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renal MRI radiomics in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome: a novel imaging approach for genotype identification.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Research progress on predicting KRAS gene mutations in colorectal cancer by combining radiomics and multimodal medical imaging.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Pilot Study for the Assessment of the Best Radiomic Features for Bosniak Cyst Classification Using Phantom and Radiologist Inter-Observer Selection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a systematic assessment and analyze the quality of radiomics methodology in current literature in the evaluation of renal masses using the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) approach.
methodsWe systematically reviewed recent radiomics literature in renal masses published in PubMed, EMBASE, Elsevier, and Web of Science. Two reviewers blinded by each other's scores evaluated the quality of radiomics methodology in studies published from 2015 to August 2021 using the RQS approach. Owing to the diversity in the imaging modalities and radiomics applications, a meta-analysis could not be performed.
resultsBased on our inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 87 published studies were included in our study. The highest RQS was noted in three categories: reporting of clinical utility, gold standard, and feature reduction. The average RQS of the two reviewers ranged from 5 ≤ RQS≤19, with the maximum attainable RQS being 36. Very few (7/87
conclusionsWe report that the overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies in renal masses is suboptimal, and subsequent studies should bolster current deficiencies to improve reporting of radiomics methodologies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The RQS approach is a meaningful quantitative scoring system to assess radiomics methodology quality and supports a comprehensive evaluation of the radiomics approach before its incorporation into clinical practice.
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.