ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Assessing the reliability of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST): a systematic review of the factors contributing to inter-observer variability.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) have been the standard for assessing tumor response in oncology trials since 2000. Despite the use of these criteria, interobserver variability (IOV) remains a significant concern, as it can affect patient management and clinical trial outcomes. We aimed to review the current literature on factors contributing to IOV in RECIST. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a systematic review to summarize potential factors that can contribute to variability, variance, or reproducibility in RECIST assessments: (I) manual measurements, (II) selection of lesions, (III) 1D diameters, (IV) intra-radiologist variability, (V) the experience of the readers, (VI) local vs centralized assessment, (VII) variations of criteria used, (VIII) type of imaging, (IX) follow-up schedule. Inclusion criteria required studies to use RECIST (1.0, 1.1, or modified versions), involve multiple response evaluations and provide comparative data on the same test subjects.
resultsWe identified 246 studies, of which 88 met our inclusion criteria. Median sample size across studies was 50 patients (IQR: 25.8-90.8). Most studies (68.2%) used CT scans as the sole imaging modality. The most common primary tumors studied were lung and hepatocellular carcinoma (each 14.8%). Most studies showed an IOV being affected by measurement methods, lesion selection, and imaging quality. Statistical methods for IOV vary: Kappa for categorical and intraclass correlation for continuous data, with calculation differences limiting comparability and risking misleading conclusions.
conclusionStandardized protocols are needed to study interobserver variability in RECIST and enable us to understand the current criteria and develop better ones. KEY POINTS: We should standardize the assessment of interobserver variability in RECIST to improve reproducibility, comparability, and clinical trial decision reliability. Interobserver variability in RECIST depends on measurement methods, lesion selection, and imaging quality. Inconsistent statistics hinder study comparability. Standardized RECIST protocols can reduce variability, improving evaluation consistency, clinical decisions, and treatment outcomes in oncology trials.
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.