Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31953657›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published.

Lee Treanor, Robert A Frank, Lindsay A Cherpak, Ana Dehmoobad Sharifabadi, Jean-Paul Salameh, Zachary Hallgrimson, Nicholas Fabiano, Trevor A McGrath, Noemie Kraaijpoel, Jason Yao and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Global Authorship Representation in Otolaryngology Clinical Trials.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Is There Evidence of P-Hacking in Imaging Research?Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

13 authors.

Lee TreanorDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Robert A FrankDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Lindsay A CherpakDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Ana Dehmoobad SharifabadiDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Jean-Paul SalamehClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Zachary HallgrimsonDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Nicholas FabianoDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Trevor A McGrathDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Noemie KraaijpoelDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jason YaoDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Daniel A KorevaarDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Patrick M BossuytClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Matthew 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.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8404-4075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate whether imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions or titles are more likely to reach full-text publication than those with negative (or neutral) conclusions or titles.

methodsDiagnostic accuracy research abstracts were included if they were presented at the 2011 or 2012 Radiological Society of North America conference. Full-text publication status at 5 years post conference abstract submission was determined. Conclusion and title positivity of conference abstracts were extracted, as well as potential confounding factors. The associations of conclusion and title positivity with publication status at 5 years post conference abstract submission were assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model. Conditional odds ratios were calculated to express the strength of associations, adjusting for the confounders.

resultsIn total, 282/400 (71%) of included conference abstracts reached full-text publication. A total of 246 out of 337 (74%) conference abstracts with positive conclusions resulted in full-text publications, compared with 26/48 (54%) with neutral conclusions and 5/15 (33%) with negative conclusions. In multivariable logistic regression, conclusion positivity was significantly associated with full-text publication (odds ratio 3.6; 95% CI 1.9-6.7 for conference abstracts with positive conclusions, compared with those with non-positive conclusions); this did not apply to title positivity (odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 0.47-3.0).

conclusionImaging conference abstracts with positive conclusions were more likely to be published as full-text articles. Title positivity was not associated with publication. This preferential publication pattern may lead to an overrepresentation of positive studies in the literature. An overrepresentation of positive studies may contribute to inflated estimates of test accuracy and has the potential to adversely influence patient care. KEY POINTS: • Imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions were more likely to be reported as full-text articles than those with non-positive conclusions. • The majority (75%) of imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions were published, compared with only 53% and 33% with neutral and negative conclusions, respectively. • Conclusion positivity remained associated with the full-text publication of conference abstracts when controlling for multiple potential confounding variables.

Indexed as

Abstracting and IndexingDiagnostic ImagingPublication BiasData AccuracyHumansLogistic ModelsMultivariate AnalysisNorth AmericaRadiologyDiagnostic imagingDiagnostic testsEpidemiologyPublication biasResearch designroutine

Identifiers

PMID31953657

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.