ArticleInsights into imaging2023
American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria®: a bibliometric analysis of panel members.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Response to: American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria®: A bibliometric analysis of panel members.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the features of panel members involved in the writing of the ACR-AC and identify alignment with research output and topic-specific research publications.
methodsA cross-sectional analysis was performed on the research output of panel members of 34 ACR-AC documents published in 2021. For each author, we searched Medline to record total number of papers (P), total number of ACR-AC papers (C) and total number of previously published papers that are relevant to the ACR-AC topic (R).
resultsThree hundred eighty-three different panel members constituted 602 panel positions for creating 34 ACR-AC in 2021 with a median panel size of 17 members. Sixty-eight (17.5%) of experts had been part of ≥10 previously published ACR-AC papers and 154 (40%) were members in ≥ 5 published ACR-AC papers. The median number of previously published papers relevant to the ACR-AC topic was 1 (IQR: 0-5). 44% of the panel members had no previously published paper relevant to the ACR-AC topic. The proportion of ACR-AC papers (C/P) was higher for authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.21) than authors with < 5 ACR-AC papers (0.11, p < 0.0001); however, proportion of relevant papers per topic (R/P) was higher for authors with < 5 ACR-AC papers (0.10) than authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.07).
conclusionThe composition of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria panels reflects many members with little or no previously published literature on the topic of consideration. Similar pool of experts exists on multiple expert panels formulating imaging appropriateness guidelines. KEY POINTS: There were 68 (17.5%) panel experts on ≥ 10 ACR-AC panels. Nearly 45% of the panel experts had zero median number of relevant papers. Fifteen panels (44%) had > 50% of members having zero relevant papers.
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.