Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement.

Objectives: To evaluate radiomics studies according to radiomics quality score (RQS) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) to provide objective measurement of radiomics research.Materials and Methods: PubMed and Embase were searc...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:European Radiology Vol. 30; no. 1; pp. 523 - 537
Main Authors: Park, Ji Eun, Kim, Donghyun, Kim, Ho Sung, Park, Seo Young, Kim, Jung Youn, Cho, Se Jin, Shin, Jae Ho, Kim, Jeong Hoon
Format: research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article
Published: Springer Nature Jan2020
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=140064746&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 140064746
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        09387994
        NPH
      jtl: European Radiology
      issn: 09387994
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2020
      vid: 30
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        140064746
        140064746
        NLM31350588
        140064746
        10.1007/s00330-019-06360-z
        NLM31350588
        140064746
      ppf: 523
      ppct: 14
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement.
      aug:
        au:
          Park, Ji Eun
          Kim, Donghyun
          Kim, Ho Sung
          Park, Seo Young
          Kim, Jung Youn
          Cho, Se Jin
          Shin, Jae Ho
          Kim, Jeong Hoon
        affil: Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 43 Olympic-ro 88, Songpa-Gu, 05505, Seoul, South Korea
      sug:
        subj:
          Quality of Health Care Statistics and Numerical Data
          Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods
          Neoplasms
          Tomography, X-Ray Computed Methods
          Study Design Standards
          Human
          Systematic Review
          PubMed
          Embase
      ab: Objectives: To evaluate radiomics studies according to radiomics quality score (RQS) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) to provide objective measurement of radiomics research.Materials and Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched for studies published in high clinical imaging journals until December 2018 using the terms "radiomics" and "radiogenomics." Studies were scored against the items in the RQS and TRIPOD guidelines. Subgroup analyses were performed for journal type (clinical vs. imaging), intended use (diagnostic vs. prognostic), and imaging modality (CT vs. MRI), and articles were compared using Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney analysis.Results: Seventy-seven articles were included. The mean RQS score was 26.1% of the maximum (9.4 out of 36). The RQS was low in demonstration of clinical utility (19.5%), test-retest analysis (6.5%), prospective study (3.9%), and open science (3.9%). None of the studies conducted a phantom or cost-effectiveness analysis. The adherence rate for TRIPOD was 57.8% (mean) and was particularly low in reporting title (2.6%), stating study objective in abstract and introduction (7.8% and 16.9%), blind assessment of outcome (14.3%), sample size (6.5%), and missing data (11.7%) categories. Studies in clinical journals scored higher and more frequently adopted external validation than imaging journals.Conclusions: The overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies is insufficient. Scientific improvements need to be made to feature reproducibility, analysis of clinical utility, and open science categories. Reporting of study objectives, blind assessment, sample size, and missing data is deemed to be necessary.Key Points: • The overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies is insufficient. • The RQS was low in demonstration of clinical utility, test-retest analysis, prospective study, and open science. • Room for improvement was shown in TRIPOD in stating study objective in abstract and introduction, blind assessment of outcome, sample size, and missing data categories.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        systematic review
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N