↓ Skip to main content

Reproducibility and interobserver agreement of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: focus on imaging features

Overview of attention for article published in Radiologia Brasileira, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reproducibility and interobserver agreement of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: focus on imaging features
Published in
Radiologia Brasileira, January 2017
DOI 10.1590/0100-3984.2015.0174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Mast Vilaseca, Antonio Carlos Westphalen, Henrique Ferreira Reis, Orlando Salomão Zogbi, Gyl Eanes Silva, Rodolfo Borges dos Reis, Valdair Francisco Muglia

Abstract

To investigate the reproducibility and interobserver agreement for R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system. Two independent radiologists retrospectively analyzed 46 consecutive patients with renal masses, between 2008 and 2012, using the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score (RENAL-NS), which is based on the evaluation of five anatomical features of the tumor, as evaluated with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: Radius, Exophytic/endophytic properties, Nearness to the collecting system, Anterior or posterior descriptor, and Location relative to the polar line. Tumor complexity was graded as low, intermediate, or high. The interobserver agreement was calculated for the total score and for the score for each parameter. Surgical excision of the tumors was used as the standard of reference. The interobserver agreement for each of the RENAL-NS parameters, respectively, a hilar location, and the total score was 98%, 80%, 100%, 89%, 85%, 89%, and 93% of patients, corresponding to kappa values of 0.96, 0.65, 1.00, 0.75, 0.72, 0.78, and 0.88, respectively. The Nearness, Radius, and total score showed the best agreement. For the cases that were discordant in terms of the final score, no major implications in surgical planning were observed. The RENAL-NS is a structured, useful system to assess the anatomical features of renal tumors. It is easily applicable and reproducible, even for less experienced radiologists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Unknown 6 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Unknown 6 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Radiologia Brasileira
#245
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,195
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiologia Brasileira
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.