| Title |
Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-014-1815-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cong Wang, Chong Yu, Fang Yang, Guang Yang |
| Abstract |
This meta-analysis aimed to identify the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, CISCOM, CINAHL, EBSCO, and CBM databases from inception through August 1, 2013 without language restrictions. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA version 12.0 and Meta-Disc version 1.4 softwares. We calculated the summary statistics for sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+/LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Eleven studies that met all inclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis. A total of 567 RCC patients and 313 patients with benign renal tumors were assessed. All renal lesions were histologically confirmed after CEUS. The pooled Sen was 0.88 (95 %CI = 0.85 ∼ 0.90); the pooled Spe was 0.80 (95 %CI = 0.75 ∼ 0.85). The pooled LR+ was 4.30 (95 %CI = 2.65 ∼ 6.99); the pooled negative LR- was 0.11 (95 %CI = 0.05 ∼ 0.22). The pooled DOR of CEUS in the diagnosis of RCC was 46.97 (95 % CI = 16.72 ∼ 131.97). The area under the SROC curve was 0.922 (standard error [SE] = 0.039). We found no evidence for publication bias (t = -1.00, P = 0.342). Our meta-analysis indicates that CEUS may have high diagnostic accuracy in differential diagnosis between benign and malignant renal tumors. Thus, CEUS may be a good tool for the diagnosis of RCC. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2014.
All research outputs
#6,409,166
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#302
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,280
of 223,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#8
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 223,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.