ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often?
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PSMA PET for primary lymph node staging of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: an expedited systematic review.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2020Pooled it
- Is There Evidence of P-Hacking in Imaging Research?Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes · 2023Article
- Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?European radiology · 2023Article
- High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- The 100 top-cited meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in radiology journals: a bibliometric analysis.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Through the quality kaleidoscope: reflections on research in dentomaxillofacial imaging.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2020Article
- Evidence for Citation Networks in Studies of Free-Roaming Cats: A Case Study Using Literature on Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published.European radiology · 2020Article
- Writing an Evidence-based Article in Plastic Surgery: Translating Research into High-quality Care.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019Review
- Impact and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers.European radiology · 2019Article
- Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often?European radiology · 2019Article
- Citations in scientific articles: possibly biased reflections on the field of diagnostic imaging.European radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the risk of citation bias in imaging diagnostic accuracy research by evaluating whether studies with higher accuracy estimates are cited more frequently than those with lower accuracy estimates.
methodsWe searched Medline for diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses published in imaging journals from January 2005 to April 2016. Primary studies from the meta-analyses were screened; those assessing the diagnostic accuracy of an imaging test and reporting sensitivity and specificity were eligible for inclusion. Studies not indexed in Web of Science, duplicates, and inaccessible articles were excluded. Topic (modality/subspecialty), study design, sample size, journal impact factor, publication date, times cited, sensitivity, and specificity were extracted for each study. Negative binomial regression was performed to evaluate the association of citation rate (times cited per month since publication) with Youden's index (sensitivity + specificity -1), highest sensitivity, and highest specificity, controlling for the potential confounding effects of modality, subspecialty, impact factor, study design, sample size, and source meta-analysis.
resultsThere were 1016 primary studies included. A positive association between Youden's index and citation rate was present, with a regression coefficient of 0.33 (p = 0.016). The regression coefficient for sensitivity was 0.41 (p = 0.034), and for specificity, 0.32 (p = 0.15).
conclusionA positive association exists between diagnostic accuracy estimates and citation rates, indicating that there is evidence of citation bias in imaging diagnostic accuracy literature. Overestimation of imaging test accuracy may contribute to patient harm from incorrect interpretation of test results. KEY POINTS: • Studies with higher accuracy estimates may be cited more frequently than those with lower accuracy estimates. • This citation bias could lead clinicians, reviews, and clinical practice guidelines to overestimate the accuracy of imaging tests, contributing to patient harm from incorrect interpretation of test results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30443756What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.