Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36282312›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2023

Systematic review of the radiomics quality score applications: an EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group Initiative.

Gaia Spadarella, Arnaldo Stanzione, Tugba Akinci D'Antonoli, Anna Andreychenko, Salvatore Claudio Fanni, Lorenzo Ugga, Elmar Kotter, Renato Cuocolo

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 18 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  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. Accuracy of Radiomics in PredictingRadiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 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.

Gaia SpadarellaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Arnaldo StanzioneDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy. arnaldo.stanzione@unina.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7905-5789
Tugba Akinci D'AntonoliInstitute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cantonal Hospital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland.
Anna AndreychenkoResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow, Russia.
Salvatore Claudio FanniDepartment of Translational Research, Academic Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Lorenzo UggaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Elmar KotterDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Renato CuocoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe main aim of the present systematic review was a comprehensive overview of the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS)-based systematic reviews to highlight common issues and challenges of radiomics research application and evaluate the relationship between RQS and review features.

methodsThe literature search was performed on multiple medical literature archives according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews that reported radiomic quality assessment through the RQS. Reported scores were converted to a 0-100% scale. The Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare RQS scores and review features.

resultsThe literature research yielded 345 articles, from which 44 systematic reviews were finally included in the analysis. Overall, the median of RQS was 21.00% (IQR = 11.50). No significant differences of RQS were observed in subgroup analyses according to targets (oncological/not oncological target, neuroradiology/body imaging focus and one imaging technique/more than one imaging technique, characterization/prognosis/detection/other).

conclusionsOur review did not reveal a significant difference of quality of radiomic articles reported in systematic reviews, divided in different subgroups. Furthermore, low overall methodological quality of radiomics research was found independent of specific application domains. While the RQS can serve as a reference tool to improve future study designs, future research should also be aimed at improving its reliability and developing new tools to meet an ever-evolving research space. KEY POINTS: • Radiomics is a promising high-throughput method that may generate novel imaging biomarkers to improve clinical decision-making process, but it is an inherently complex analysis and often lacks reproducibility and generalizability. • The Radiomics Quality Score serves a necessary role as the de facto reference tool for assessing radiomics studies. • External auditing of radiomics studies, in addition to the standard peer-review process, is valuable to highlight common limitations and provide insights to improve future study designs and practical applicability of the radiomics models.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingBiomarkersHumansPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkersBig dataDiagnostic imagingRadiomicsRadiomics quality scoreSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36282312
PMCPMC9935718

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.