http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13130273/-/DC1.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates.MethodsAll SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007–Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided.Results129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.ConclusionThere is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF.

Summary1. Increases in longevity from dietary restriction (DR) have been linked to the evolution of physiological strategies for maintaining lifetime reproductive output despite periods of nutritional deficiency. If this is the case, then reproductive life history and mating status should determine whether or not dietary restriction increases longevity. 2. We investigate the effects of DR and mating status (mated or unmated) on longevity and lifetime reproductive output and explore mechanisms underlying these patterns by measuring resting energetic rates and changes in mass over time. We study iteroparous female Australian redback spiders (Latrodectus hasselti), which are known to tolerate periods of starvation (ecologically relevant DR) in nature. . Most strikingly, mated females (whether DR or not) had higher longevity than unmated females. 4. Mated females rapidly decreased their resting energetic rates and stopped egg production under DR. Once feeding returned to normal, resting energetic rates of mated females increased immediately, egg sac production continued and there was no net decrease in lifetime reproductive output relative to mated females without DR. 5. This shows DR increases longevity for mated females, but there is a longevity cost of remaining unmated, which may arise because unmated females (regardless of diet) maintained high energetic rates. This may be an evolved pattern of physiological support for reproductive readiness which exerts a fitness cost when mating is delayed. Taken together, these results suggest positive effects of DR on longevity critically depend on reproductive life history (iteroparity or semelparity) and individual mating status.

To evaluate whether completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals has changed since publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement; a secondary objective is to evaluate whether completeness of reporting (ie, PRISMA) is associated with study quality (ie, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR]). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in major radiology journals between January 2007 and December 2011 were identified by searching MEDLINE with the modified Montori method. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators and assessed for adherence to the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. The average results were analyzed to assess for change in mean score before and after PRISMA publication and to assess results over time; a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for any association between PRISMA and AMSTAR results. Results: Included were 130 studies from 11 journals. Average PRISMA and AMSTAR results were 21.8 of 27 and 7.2 of 11, respectively. The average result was higher after publication of PRISMA, and PRISMA-reported items were 22.6 of 27 after publication of PRISMA versus 20.9 of 27 before publication of PRISMA; AM-STAR results were 7.7 of 11 after publication of PRISMA versus 6.7 of 11 before publication of PRISMA. There was a strong positive correlation (r = 0.86) between the PRISMA and AMSTAR results. There was high variability between journals. Radiology had the highest PRISMA reported items (24.7 of 27), and American Journal of Neuroradiology had the lowest (19.6 of 27). Two major areas for improvement include study protocol registration and assessment of risk of bias across studies (ie, publication bias). Conclusion: In major radiology journal studies, there was modest improvement in completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, assessed by PRISMA, which was strongly associated with higher study quality, assessed by AMSTAR.