ReviewPediatric radiology2025
Tracing global inequities in radiology research: a multi-level analysis of research output.
Review in Pediatric radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAuthorship disparities in medical research are evident, particularly between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs). These disparities have been analyzed in recent publications in Pediatric Radiology journal, noting that between 2019 and 2022, no manuscripts from LICs and only 13 manuscripts from LMICs were published. To our knowledge, an extensive review of publication trends in Pediatric Radiology journal and in radiology word containing journals, with regard to LICs/LMICs disparities, is currently lacking.
objectiveThe objective was to assess historical trends and regional disparities in radiology research output and impact. MATERIALS AND
methodsA three-pronged approach was used: (1) analysis of all original articles and reviews in Pediatric Radiology (1973-2024), distinguishing LMIC contributions with or without collaboration; (2) broader review of all Scopus-indexed journals with "radiology*" in the title (2001-2024), focusing on LMIC authorship; (3) comprehensive assessment of all Scopus-classified "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging" publications (2021-2024), including output and citation data from 187 countries and various global regions.
resultsIn Pediatric Radiology, only 3.4% of the 8,907 articles involved LMIC collaborations, and 0.9% were authored by LMIC researchers. The number of annual independent LMIC contributions never exceeded 5 until recently. In journals containing "radiology" in the title, LMIC researchers contributed 2.3% of all articles through collaboration and 1.25% independently, with 2024 data revealing continued reliance on partnerships (476 collaborative vs. 276 independent LMIC articles). The USA contributed 53,474 publications (26.67%) and received 362,681 citations (33.75%), whereas China produced 44,851 publications (22.37%) with 237,884 citations (22.14%). Africa produced 4,375 publications and received 22,161 citations, Latin America contributed 4,150 publications with 30,061 citations, and South America generated 3,590 publications with 26,084 citations. The Middle East had the highest citation-per-publication ratio (6.1), followed by the Asia Pacific (5.7), the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (5.3), South Asia (5.2), and Africa (5.1).
conclusionThe data illustrate that LMICs remain underrepresented in radiology research. Targeted policy reforms, funding mechanisms, and capacity-building strategies are needed to enhance equity and support LMIC-driven radiology scholarship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40900314What 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.