Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug;56(2):380-390.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.28046. Epub 2022 Jan 8.

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals

Robert A Frank  1 , Nicholas Fabiano  1 , Zachary Hallgrimson  1 , Daniël A Korevaar  2 , Jérémie F Cohen  3 , Patrick M Bossuyt  4 , Mariska M G Leeflang  4 , David Moher  5 , Matthew D F McInnes  1   5 ; UnBIAS Research Group; Lee Treanor  1 , Jean-Paul Salameh  5   6 , Trevor A McGrath  1 , Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi  7 , Almohannad Atyani  1 , Sakib Kazi  1 , Jade Choo-Foo  1 , Nabil Asraoui  1 , Mostafa Alabousi  7 , Winston Ha  1 , Ross Prager  8 , Paul Rooprai  1 , Alex Pozdnyakov  7 , Susan John  1 , Heba Osman  1 , Nayaar Islam  5 , Nicole Li  7 , Isabelle D Gauthier  1 , Marissa Absi  1 , Noëmie Kraaijpoel  9 , Sanam Ebrahimzadeh  5 , John D Port  10 , Jaap Stoker  11 , Jeffrey S Klein  12 , Mark Schweitzer  13
Affiliations

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals

Robert A Frank et al. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions.

Purpose/hypothesis: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals.

Study type: Meta-research.

Population: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included.

Assessment: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted.

Statistical tests: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05.

Results: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts.

Data conclusion: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals.

Evidence level: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Keywords: STARD; conclusion positivity; diagnostic accuracy; meta-research; peer review; publication bias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Duyx B, Urlings MJE, Swaen GMH, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Scientific citations favor positive results: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;88:92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002.
    1. Malički M, Marušić A. Consortium OtOftPnf. Is there a solution to publication bias? Researchers call for changes in dissemination of clinical research results. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67(10):1103-1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.002.
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;10:MR000035.
    1. Driessen E, Hollon SD, Bockting CL, Cuijpers P, Turner EH. Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US National Institutes of Health-funded trials. PLoS One 2015;10(9):e0137864.
    1. Roest AM, de Jonge P, Williams CD, de Vries YA, Schoevers RA, Turner EH. Reporting bias in clinical trials investigating the efficacy of second-generation antidepressants in the treatment of anxiety disorders: A report of 2 meta-analyses. JAMA Psychiat 2015;72(5):500-510.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources