ArticleClinical neuroradiology2024
Integrity of Clinical Neuroradiological Research.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2024. 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.
- Image fraud in nuclear medicine research.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt is unclear if undesired practices such as scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in neuroradiology. Therefore, the objective was to explore the integrity of clinical neuroradiological research using a survey method.
methodsCorresponding authors who published in one of four top clinical neuroradiology journals were invited to complete a survey about integrity in clinical neuroradiology research.
resultsA total of 232 corresponding authors participated in our survey. Confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in clinical neuroradiology (0-10 point scale) was rated as a median score of 8 (range 3-10). In linear regression analysis, respondents from Asia had significantly higher confidence (beta coefficient of 0.569, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.049-1.088, P = 0.032). Of the respondents 8 (3.4%) reported to have committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years, whereas 66 respondents (28.4%) reported to have witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. A total of 192 respondents (82.8%) thought that a study with positive results is more likely to be accepted by a journal than a similar study with negative results and 96 respondents (41.4%) had an honorary author on any of their publications in the past 5 years.
conclusionExperts in the field have overall high confidence in published clinical neuroradiology research; however, scientific integrity concerns are not negligible, publication bias is a problem and honorary authorship is common. The findings from this survey may help to increase awareness and vigilance among anyone involved in clinical neuroradiological research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38095663What 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.