• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2006.08a
• /
• pp.151-151
• /
• 2006

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.21 no.8
• /
• pp.1024-1025
• /
• 2020

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.23 no.12
• /
• pp.1290-1300
• /
• 2022

Objective: "Diagnostic yield," also referred to as the detection rate, is a parameter positioned between diagnostic accuracy and diagnosis-related patient outcomes in research studies that assess diagnostic tests. Unfamiliarity with the term may lead to incorrect usage and delivery of information. Herein, we evaluate the level of proper use of the term "diagnostic yield" and its related parameters in articles published in Radiology and Korean Journal of Radiology (KJR). Materials and Methods: Potentially relevant articles published since 2012 in these journals were identified using MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases. The initial search yielded 239 articles. We evaluated whether the correct definition and study setting of "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" were used and whether the articles also reported companion parameters for false-positive results. We calculated the proportion of articles that correctly used these parameters and evaluated whether the proportion increased with time (2012-2016 vs. 2017-2022). Results: Among 39 eligible articles (19 from Radiology and 20 from KJR), 17 (43.6%; 11 from Radiology and 6 from KJR) correctly defined "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." The remaining 22 articles used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" with incorrect meanings such as "diagnostic performance" or "sensitivity." The proportion of correctly used diagnostic terms was higher in the studies published in Radiology than in those published in KJR (57.9% vs. 30.0%). The proportion improved with time in Radiology (33.3% vs. 80.0%), whereas no improvement was observed in KJR over time (33.3% vs. 27.3%). The proportion of studies reporting companion parameters was similar between journals (72.7% vs. 66.7%), and no considerable improvement was observed over time. Conclusion: Overall, a minority of articles accurately used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." Incorrect usage of the terms was more frequent without improvement over time in KJR than in Radiology. Therefore, improvements are required in the use and reporting of these parameters.

• Journal of The Korean Radiological Technologist Association
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.377-388
• /
• 1999

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.77-79
• /
• 1995

• Proceedings of the KSMRM Conference
• /
• 1997.10a
• /
• pp.55-55
• /
• 1997

• Proceedings of the KSMRM Conference
• /
• 1999.11a
• /
• pp.31-31
• /
• 1999

• Journal of The Korean Radiological Technologist Association
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.311-316
• /
• 1999

• 대한핵의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2000.05a
• /
• pp.59.2-59.2
• /
• 2000

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.60-63
• /
• 2000

Renal hemangioma is an uncommon benign tumor which usually causes painless or painful gross hematuria. Its preoperative diagnosis is extremely difficult or even impossible. We experienced three cases of renal hemangioma, located mainly at the pelvocalyceal junction or in the inner medulla. US demonstrated variable echogenecity, and CT revealed a lack of significant enhancement. Where there is gross hematuria in a young adult, especially when the renal mass located in the pelvocalyceal junction or inner medulla shows little enhancement on CT, renal hemangioma should form part of the differential diagnosis.