ReviewInsights into imaging2020
The cardiac conundrum: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of authorship in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging studies.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiac CT and MRI radiomics: systematic review of the literature and radiomics quality score assessment.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Bibliometric-driven research on chemoresistance in breast cancer: knowledge mapping, hotspot evolution, and emerging insights (1994-2024).Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic surgical robotics (1999-2023): a bibliometric exploration of technological evolution and research frontiers.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- The use of cardiac magnetic resonance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy over the past 10 years [2013-2023]: a CiteSpace-based bibliometric analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Analysis of research hotspots and trends in pediatric ophthalmopathy based on 10 years of WoSCC literature.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Articles on Midwifery Based on the Web of Science.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to assess the role of radiologists, cardiologists, and other medical and non-medical figures in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research in the last 34 years, focusing on first and last authorship, number of published studies, and journal impact factors (IF).
methodsArticles in the field of cardiac MRI were considered in this systematic review and retrospective bibliometric analysis. For included studies, the first and last authors were categorized as cardiologists, radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, medical doctors (MD) with specialties in both cardiology and radiology/nuclear medicine, and other MD and non-MD. Differences in the number of papers published overall and by year and institution location for the first and last author category were assessed. Mean IF differences between author categories were also investigated.
resultsA total of 2053 articles were included in the final analysis. For the first authors (n = 2011), 52% were cardiologists, 22% radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, 16% other MD, 10% other non-MD, and 1% both cardiologists and radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians. Similarly, the last authors (n = 2029) resulted 54% cardiologists, 22% radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, 15% other MD, 8% other non-MD, and 2% both cardiologists and radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians. No significant differences due to institution location in the first and last authorship proportions were found. Average journal IF was significantly higher for cardiologist first and last authors when compared to that of radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians (both p < 0.0001).
conclusionOver 50% of studies in the field of cardiac MRI published in the last 34 years are conducted by cardiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.