Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291999›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Small Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Antonio Tufano, Luca Antonelli, Giovanni Battista Di Pierro, Rocco Simone Flammia, Rocco Minelli, Umberto Anceschi, Costantino Leonardo, Giorgio Franco, Francesco Maria Drudi, Vito Cantisani

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Antonio TufanoDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Luca AntonelliDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Giovanni Battista Di PierroDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2321-0548
Rocco Simone FlammiaDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3129-0544
Rocco MinelliDepartment Life and Health "V. Tiberio", University of Molise, Francesco De Sanctis 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.
Umberto AnceschiDepartment of Urology, IRCCS "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7586-4132
Costantino LeonardoDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Giorgio FrancoDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Francesco Maria DrudiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathobiological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Vito CantisaniDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathobiological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Policlinico Umberto I · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversity of Molise · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultrasound (US) is a highly sensitive imaging tool in the detection of renal masses. However, the detection rate of small renal masses (SRMs) (<4 cm) is still limited. In this scenario, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a relatively novel, but increasingly utilized, diagnostic modality which aims to increase the overall diagnostic ability in the identification of SRMs. In consequence, we performed a systematic review (SR) and pooled meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic performance of CEUS in the evaluation of SRMs confirmed by pathology. A SR up to April 2022 was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was evaluated basing on malignant vs. benign SMRs. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) from eligible studies were pooled, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were constructed for each endpoint. Overall, five qualified studies were deemed suitable for this meta-analysis. Finally, diagnostic performance of CEUS showed an accuracy of 0.93 in detecting malignant masses (sensitivity of 0.94, PPV of 0.95, specificity of 0.78, and NPV of 0.73). Taken together, CEUS may represent a promising minimally invasive diagnostic tool for characterization of SMRs, since it allows clinicians to identify malignant lesions.

Indexed as

contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)perfusionquantitative analysisrenal cancerrenal massessmall kidney massessmall renal masses

Identifiers

PMID36291999
PMCPMC9600471
OpenAlexW4297151853

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.