↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.
Article details
Title
Can Radiologists and Urologists Reliably Determine Renal Mass Histology Using Standard Preoperative Computed Tomography Imaging?
Published in
Journal of Endourology, April 2015
DOI 10.1089/end.2014.0560
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Objective: To determine the extent to which radiologists and urologists can predict histology using multi-phasic CT imaging. Methods: Patients with a preoperative multiphasic CT undergoing surgery for a renal mass were identified between 2003 and 2013. Tumors >10cm, locally advanced or metastatic disease, and patients managed by reviewers were excluded. A survey and de-identified scans were provided to reviewers. Sensitivity and accuracy in predicting histology was calculated for each reviewer. Correlation was assessed by Fleiss' kappa coefficient. Multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with predictive accuracy for final pathology. Results: 120 cases met criteria. Mean tumor size was 3.3 cm. 102 (85%) were malignant, and 73% of these were clear cell RCC. The most common benign histology was angiomyolipoma (n=10, 56%) followed by oncocytoma (n=5, 28%). Correlation among reviewers was statistically fair for predicting malignant (k=0.25) and final pathology (k=0.22). Sensitivity for predicting malignant masses was 90%. Reviewers accurately predicted malignant pathology in 82% of cases and predicted final pathology in 58% of cases. Adjusted for size, scan type, and reviewer, clear cell RCC vs. benign histology was associated with 21 times increased odds of accurate pathologic identification (p<0.001). Conclusions: Urologists and radiologists were able to accurately identify malignant histology in 82% of cases, although sensitivity for malignant histology 90%. Developing a preoperative nomogram for identification of clear cell RCC may be feasible and should be further explored.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 29%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 57%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
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 08 October 2014.
All research outputs
#22,893,765
of 32,151,140 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endourology
#1,988
of 2,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,453
of 296,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endourology
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,151,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 296,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.