SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2025
Citation and adherence to TRIPOD guidelines by published radiological prognostic models: systematic review.
Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological review of the level of statistical support declared in radiological research articles.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Local fat, local risk: mesorectal fat volume outperforms BMI in predicting rectal cancer surgery outcomes.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to establish the extent to which prognostic models published in highly indexed radiological journals cite and adhere to generally accepted reporting guidelines.
methodsWe identified articles reporting multivariable prognostic models, developed using regression and published in the top 3 indexed general radiological journals, December 2022 to May 2023 inclusive. We determined whether they cited the generally accepted reporting guideline, Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). We scored adherence to individual TRIPOD domains to determine reporting quality both overall and for specific areas.
resultsWe included 140 articles. Only 4% (n = 6) cited TRIPOD, with just 1 including the checklist. TRIPOD adherence was poor overall, with a median score of 57% (interquartile range, IQR 48% to 64%, range 30% to 87%). Individual domains particularly poorly reported were, title (2% adherence), abstract (3%), and statistical analysis (5%). Only 38% articles (n = 53) named a statistician author. Only one journal mentioned TRIPOD guidelines in their "Instructions For Authors" but did not mandate checklist submission.
conclusionsThe large majority of prognostic models published in highly indexed radiological journals did not cite TRIPOD, nor fulfil its recommendations. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Authors should adhere to the TRIPOD statement so that their work is reported with sufficient clarity, and radiological journals should stipulate adherence for authors submitting prognostic models for publication.
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.