Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39794540›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Evaluating the impact of the Radiomics Quality Score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nathaniel Barry, Jake Kendrick, Kaylee Molin, Suning Li, Pejman Rowshanfarzad, Ghulam M Hassan, Jason Dowling, Paul M Parizel, Michael S Hofman, Martin A Ebert

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nathaniel BarrySchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Nathaniel.barry@research.uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9009-5909
Jake KendrickSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Kaylee MolinSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Suning LiSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Pejman RowshanfarzadSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Ghulam M HassanSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Jason DowlingThe Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Paul M ParizelDavid Hartley Chair of Radiology, Royal Perth Hospital and University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Michael S HofmanProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence (ProsTIC); Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Martin A EbertSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesConduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the application of the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS). MATERIALS AND

methodsA search was conducted from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews which implemented the RQS. Identification of articles prior to 2022 was via a previously published review. Quality scores of individual radiomics papers, their associated criteria scores, and these scores from all readers were extracted. Errors in the application of RQS criteria were noted and corrected. The RQS of radiomics papers were matched with the publication date, imaging modality, and country, where available.

resultsA total of 130 systematic reviews were included, and individual quality scores 117/130 (90.0%), criteria scores 98/130 (75.4%), and multiple reader data 24/130 (18.5%) were extracted. 3258 quality scores were correlated with the radiomics study date of publication. Criteria scoring errors were discovered in 39/98 (39.8%) of articles. Overall mean RQS was 9.4 ± 6.4 (95% CI, 9.1-9.6) (26.1% ± 17.8% (25.3%-26.7%)). Quality scores were positively correlated with publication year (Pearson R = 0.32, p < 0.01) and significantly higher after publication of the RQS (year < 2018, 5.6 ± 6.1 (5.1-6.1); year ≥ 2018, 10.1 ± 6.1 (9.9-10.4); p < 0.01). Only 233/3258 (7.2%) scores were ≥ 50% of the maximum RQS. Quality scores were significantly different across imaging modalities (p < 0.01). Ten criteria were positively correlated with publication year, and one was negatively correlated.

conclusionRadiomics study adherence to the RQS is increasing with time, although a vast majority of studies are developmental and rarely provide a high level of evidence to justify the clinical translation of proposed models. KEY POINTS: Question What level of adherence to the Radiomics Quality Score have radiomics studies achieved to date, has it increased with time, and is it sufficient? Findings A meta-analysis of 3258 quality scores extracted from 130 review articles resulted in a mean score of 9.4 ± 6.4. Quality scores were positively correlated with time. Clinical relevance Although quality scores of radiomics studies have increased with time, many studies have not demonstrated sufficient evidence for clinical translation. As new appraisal tools emerge, the current role of the Radiomics Quality Score may change.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingHumansRadiomicsMeta-analysisPrecision medicineRadiomicsRadiomics Quality ScoreSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39794540
PMCPMC11835903

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.