ArticleInsights into imaging2024
Is there enough evidence supporting the clinical adoption of clear cell likelihood score (ccLS)? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. 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.
- Combined radiological approach for characterization of solid renal masses: a proposed strategy for integrating the RENAL nephrometry score into the clear cell likelihood score.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Multimodal deep learning model for multiclass classification of renal tumors.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation, Optimization, and Validation of a Multiparametric CT Algorithm for Solid Renal Masses: CT-Score Version 2.0.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo review the evidence for clinical adoption of clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) for identifying clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) from small renal masses (SRMs).
methodsWe distinguished the literature on ccLS for identifying ccRCC via systematic search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data until 31 March, 2024. The risk of bias and concern on application was assessed using the modified quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The level of evidence supporting the clinical adoption of ccLS for identifying ccRCC was determined based on meta-analyses.
resultsEight MRI studies and three CT studies were included. The risk of bias and application were mainly related to the index test and flow and timing, due to incomplete imaging protocol, unclear rating process, and inappropriate interval between imaging and surgery. The diagnostic odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of MRI and CT ccLS were 14.69 (9.71-22.22; 6 studies, 1429 SRM, 869 ccRCC), and 5.64 (3.34-9.54; 3 studies, 296 SRM, 147 ccRCC), respectively, for identifying ccRCC from SRM. The evidence level for clinical adoption of MRI and CT ccLS were both rated as weak. MRI ccLS version 2.0 potentially has better diagnostic performance than version 1.0 (1 study, 700 SRM, 509 ccRCC). Both T2-weighted-imaging with or without fat suppression might be suitable for MRI ccLS version 2.0 (1 study, 111 SRM, 82 ccRCC).
conclusionccLS shows promising diagnostic performance for identifying ccRCC from SRM, but the evidence for its adoption in clinical routine remains weak. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Although clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) demonstrates promising performance for detecting clear cell renal cell carcinoma, additional evidence is crucial to support its routine use as a tool for both initial diagnosis and active surveillance of small renal masses. KEY POINTS: Clear cell likelihood score is designed for the evaluation of small renal masses. Both CT and MRI clear cell likelihood scores are accurate and efficient. More evidence is necessary for the clinical adoption of a clear cell likelihood score.
Indexed as
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.