Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29564596›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication.

A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi, D A Korevaar, T A McGrath, N van Es, R A Frank, L Cherpak, W Dang, J P Salameh, F Nguyen, C Stanley and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Is There Evidence of P-Hacking in Imaging Research?Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

A Dehmoobad SharifabadiDepartment of Radiology-Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
D A KorevaarDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T A McGrathDepartment of Radiology-Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
N van EsDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Room F4-139, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R A FrankDepartment of Radiology-Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
L CherpakDepartment of Radiology-Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
W DangDepartment of Radiology-Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
J P SalamehSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
F NguyenDepartment of Radiology-Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
C StanleyDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
M D F McInnesDepartment of Radiology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Room c159 Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. mmcinnes@toh.on.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate whether higher reported accuracy estimates are associated with shorter time to publication among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies.

methodsWe included primary imaging diagnostic accuracy studies, included in meta-analyses from systematic reviews published in 2015. For each primary study, we extracted accuracy estimates, participant recruitment periods and publication dates. Our primary outcome was the association between Youden's index (sensitivity + specificity - 1, a single measure of diagnostic accuracy) and time to publication.

resultsWe included 55 systematic reviews and 781 primary studies. Study completion dates were missing for 238 (30%) studies. The median time from completion to publication in the remaining 543 studies was 20 months (IQR 14-29). Youden's index was negatively correlated with time from completion to publication (rho = -0.11, p = 0.009). This association remained significant in multivariable Cox regression analyses after adjusting for seven study characteristics: hazard ratio of publication was 1.09 (95% CI 1.03-1.16, p = 0.004) per unit increase for logit-transformed estimates of Youden's index. When dichotomizing Youden's index by a median split, time from completion to publication was 20 months (IQR 13-33) for studies with a Youden's index below the median, and 19 months (14-27) for studies with a Youden's index above the median (p = 0.104).

conclusionImaging diagnostic accuracy studies with higher accuracy estimates were weakly associated with a shorter time to publication. KEY POINTS: • Higher accuracy estimates are weakly associated with shorter time to publication. • Lag in time to publication remained significant in multivariate Cox regression analyses. • No correlation between accuracy and time from submission to publication was identified.

Indexed as

Publication BiasBibliometricsDiagnostic ImagingHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicProportional Hazards ModelsPublishingResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicSensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsDiagnostic test, routineEpidemiologyMeta-analysisPublication biasSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID29564596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.