ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Impact and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers.
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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Machine learning prediction models in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review in transparent reporting.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022Pooled it
- What influences whether researchers adhere to healthcare reporting guidelines successfully? A thematic synthesis.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Reporting checklists: from a tool after publication to a tool before submission.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- The reporting of disproportionality analysis in pharmacovigilance: spotlight on the READUS-PV guideline.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Comparison of eight modern preoperative scoring systems for survival prediction in patients with extremity metastasis.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- MAIC-10 brief quality checklist for publications using artificial intelligence and medical images.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
- Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?European radiology · 2023Article
- CODE-EHR best practice framework for the use of structured electronic healthcare records in clinical research.European heart journal · 2022Article
- CODE-EHR best practice framework for the use of structured electronic healthcare records in clinical research.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- Strategies to improve the quality of reporting nursing research.Korean journal of women health nursing · 2022Article
- Evidence on reporting guidelines for surgical technique in clinical disciplines: a scoping review protocol.Gland surgery · 2021Article
- Artificial intelligence abstracts from the European Congress of Radiology: analysis of topics and compliance with the STARD for abstracts checklist.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).Systematic reviews · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse the author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers.
methodsThis survey was conducted among all corresponding authors of original research submissions to Radiology. Separately, we surveyed active Radiology reviewers. Results were analysed using logistic multivariate regression.
resultsOverall, 60% of authors (831/1391) completed the survey. Only 15% (120/821) had used the guideline and checklist when designing the study, significantly more so for PRISMA (55%, 16/29) compared with STARD and STROBE users (17%, 52/310; p < 0.001 and 10%, 46/443; p < 0.001). For 23% of the surveyed manuscripts (189/821), authors used the guidelines when writing the manuscript; these authors more often reported an impact on the final manuscript (i.e. changes in the content, 57%, 107/189) compared to those who used the guideline when submitting the manuscript (35%, 95/272; p < 0.001; OR 0.433, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.288-0.648, p < 0.001) or when the checklist was requested by the editorial office (17%, 41/240; p < 0.001; OR 0.156, CI 0.097-0.247, p < 0.001). The perceived value of the reporting guideline was rated significantly higher the earlier the authors used the guideline in the research process (p < 0.001). The checklist was used by 77% of reviewers (200/259) some or all of the time; 60% (119/199) said it affected their reviews.
conclusionReporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and higher perceived value the earlier they were used, suggesting that there is a need for enhanced education on the use of these guidelines. KEY POINTS: • Only 15% of authors had used the respective reporting guideline and checklist when designing the study. • Almost 4 out of 5 Radiology authors and half of reviewers judged the guideline checklists to be useful or very useful. • Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on manuscripts, i.e. changes that were made in the final manuscript, the earlier authors used them in the research process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30694365What 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.