ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Inter-reader agreement of RECIST and mRECIST criteria for assessing response to transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-enabled cytopathological interpretation of fluorescence microscopy images via a multimodal large language model.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Proprietary and Open-Source Large Language Models for Systematic Multi-source Information Extraction in Interventional Oncology.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound contrast in predicting the efficacy of systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the reproducibilities of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT).
methodsThis retrospective study included 105 consecutive patients with confirmed HCC recruited from November 2002 to June 2012. The study protocol has been pre-registered at ( https://osf.io/nxg4q/ ) on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform. Patients with pre-procedural and follow-up CT scans who had solely received TACE were included. The tumor response evaluation to TACE was conducted using RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST guidelines. Three experienced board-certified abdominal radiologists interpreted CT scans.
resultsFor pre-procedure CT, the agreement was more excellent when using RECIST guidelines with a "marginally significant" p-value of 0.056. This trend continued for post-procedural CT scans, with RECIST again showing significantly higher agreement with a p-value of 0.001. When evaluating the four categories of response, Gwet's coefficient was 0.90 (CI = 0.83 to 0.97) for RECIST and 0.80 (CI = 0.63 to 0.90) for mRECIST. Conversely, the Fleiss Kappa analysis demonstrated a higher agreement for the mRECIST guideline. There was an insignificant difference in RECIST and mRECIST guidelines inter-reader agreement when categorizing the tumor response with a p-value of 0.101.
conclusionBoth guidelines' inter-reader reproducibility in assessing tumor response through CT after the TACE procedure was excellent, with RECIST's reproducibility being very slightly better.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.