Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32086575›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2020

How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly.

Steve Halligan, Shedrack F Kenis, Oshaani Abeyakoon, Andrew A O Plumb, Susan Mallett

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. How to Design a Study and Write a Grant in Radiology?The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Steve HalliganCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London UCL, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK. s.halligan@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0632-5108
Shedrack F KenisCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London UCL, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
Oshaani AbeyakoonCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London UCL, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
Andrew A O PlumbCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London UCL, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
Susan MallettInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

UK National Institute for Health Research na
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review identifies and examines terms used to describe a radiological research "study" or "trial". A taxonomy of clinical research descriptions is explained with reference to medical imaging examples. Because many descriptive terms have precise methodological implications, it is important that these terms are understood by readers and used correctly by researchers, so that the reader is not misled. KEY POINTS: • Multiple different terms are being used to describe radiological research "studies" and "trials", and many of these terms have precise methodological implications. • Radiological researchers sometimes use titles that describe their research incorrectly. This can mislead the reader as to what was actually done. • It is important that readers and researchers understand the correct taxonomy of clinical research and that researchers adopt the correct description for their work.

Indexed as

RadiologySocieties, MedicalBiomedical ResearchHumansResearch DesignClinical studyClinical trialFeasibility studiesObservational studyPilot study

Identifiers

PMID32086575
PMCPMC7338281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.