Epidemiology of systematic reviews in imaging journals: evaluation of publication trends and sustainability?

Alabousi, Mostafa; Alabousi, Abdullah; McGrath, Trevor A.; Cobey, Kelly D.; Budhram, Brandon; Frank, Robert; Nguyen, Frederic; Salameh, Jean‐Paul; Sharifabadi, Anahita Dehmoobad; McInnes, Matthew D. F.

doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5567-z

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Published studies have investigated other predictors of citation rate within major radiology and psychiatry journals [22,23], as well as within systematic reviews published in imaging journals, including completeness of reporting, study quality, and country of publication [9,18]. These factors may also play a role in the citation rate of original research studies, and may warrant future investigation within radiology journals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, we utilized citation as a proxy for overall impact of a research study, and utilization of emerging alternative metrics for assessing article impact may be warranted in future research [26]. Finally, we included a subset of variables that we assessed as predictors of citation rate, but there are likely additional factors that may be investigated in future analyses [9,18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, a significant obstacle that has been recognized involves the extensive time and resources devoted to conducting and publishing a research study [6,7]. Despite this hurdle, publication rates have increased dramatically in biomedical research [8], and within radiology journals, specifically [9]. Unfortunately, this trend has been called into question due to poor research quality, impact, and redundancy [6,7,10].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One widely used approach for defining the impact of a research study utilizes the number of times it is cited over a certain period of time [14–16], with citation frequency being positively correlated with study impact on future research [15,17]. For example, characteristics including study quality, completeness of reporting, and country of publication have demonstrated a positive correlation with citation rate in imaging journals [9,18]. However, few studies have delved into the characteristics of uncited studies, especially the Canadian radiology literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study is aimed to identify predictors of citation rate of original research published in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ). Methods A search of MEDLINE was conducted from January 1, 2000-June 30, 2013 to identify all studies published in the CARJ. Original research studies were included. Reviews, pictorial essays, guidelines, case studies, case series, and original studies with a sample size <10 were excluded. Variables assessed for association with citation rate included number of authors, study design, sample size, multi-institutional study, multi-national study, study type, presence of statistically significant result, presence of funding, and number of references. Statistical analysis was completed using linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients ( r). Results A total of 714 studies were published in CARJ, of which 181 were original research publications that were cited a total of 1517 times. Twelve original research studies were uncited, while the most-cited one was cited 58 times. Sample size ( r = 0.177, P = .017) and number of references ( r = 0.164, P = .028) demonstrated statistically significant weak positive correlations with citation rate. Number of authors, study design, setting, statistically significant results, and funding were not associated with citation rate. Conclusion Only a very small number of original research studies published at the CARJ remained uncited 5 or more years after the publication. Sample size and number of references were identified as significant, but weak predictors of citation rate in CARJ.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When performed following rigorous methodology, systematic reviews can improve our understanding of a specific intervention or diagnostic test. [1][2][3] However, published systematic reviews, including DTA reviews, are often insufficiently informative and therefore of limited use. [4][5][6] Incomplete reporting of systematic reviews prevents stakeholders who rely on health research from critically assessing the quality of evidence and could lead to patient harm, misallocation of resources, and research waste.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist

Salameh

Bossuyt

McGrath

et al. 2020

BMJ

Self Cite

363

219

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pancreatic Cystic Lesions Compared to CT and Endoscopic Ultrasound: Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Udare

Agarwal

Alabousi

et al. 2021

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic cystic lesions on MRI, computed tomography (CT), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is critical for determining management. Purpose To perform a systematic review evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for diagnosing malignant pancreatic cystic lesions, and to compare the accuracy of MRI to CT and EUS. Study Type Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched until February 2020 for studies reporting MRI accuracy for assessing pancreatic cystic lesions. Field Strength 1.5T or 3.0T. Assessment Methodologic and outcome data were extracted by two reviewers (AU and MA, 2 years of experience each). All studies of pancreatic cystic lesions on MRI were identified. Studies with incomplete MRI technique were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)‐2 tool. Statistical Tests Sensitivity/specificity was pooled using bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Pairwise‐comparison of MRI to CT and EUS was performed. The impact of gadolinium‐based contrast agents, mucinous lesions, and risk of bias were explored using meta‐regression. Results MRI pooled sensitivity was 76% (95%CI 67% to 84%) and specificity was 80% (95%CI 74% to 85%) for distinguishing benign and malignant lesions. MRI and CT had similar sensitivity (P = 0.822) and specificity (P = 0.096), but MRI was more specific than EUS (80% vs. 75%, P < 0.05). Studies including only contrast‐enhanced MRI were more sensitive than those including unenhanced exams (P < 0.05). MRI sensitivity and specificity did not differ for mucinous lesions (P = 0.537 and P = 0.384, respectively) or for studies at risk of bias (P = 0.789 and P = 0.791, respectively). Data Conclusion MRI and CT demonstrate comparable accuracy for diagnosing malignant pancreatic cystic lesions. EUS is less specific than MRI, which suggests that, in some cases, management should be guided by MRI findings rather than EUS. Level of Evidence 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

show abstract

Epidemiology of systematic reviews in imaging journals: evaluation of publication trends and sustainability?

Cited by 16 publications

References 36 publications

Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pancreatic Cystic Lesions Compared to CT and Endoscopic Ultrasound: Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About