Translating radiological research into practice-from discovery to clinical impact

At the European Society of Radiology (ESR), we strive to provide evidence for radiological practices that improve patient outcomes and have a societal impact. Successful translation of radiological research into clinical practice requires multiple factors including tailored methodology, a multidisciplinary approach aiming beyond technical validation, and a focus on unmet clinical needs. Low levels of evidence are a threat to radiology, resulting in low visibility and credibility. Here, we provide the background and rationale for the thematic series Translating radiological research into practice-from discovery to clinical impact, inviting authors to describe their processes of achieving clinically impactful radiological research. We describe the challenges unique to radiological research. Additionally, a survey was sent to non-radiological clinical societies. The majority of respondents (6/11) were in the field of gastrointestinal/abdominal medicine. The implementation of CT/MRI techniques for disease characterisation, detection and staging of cancer, and treatment planning and radiological interventions were mentioned as the most important radiological developments in the past years. The perception was that patients are substantially unaware of the impact of these developments. Unmet clinical needs were mostly early diagnosis and staging of cancer, microstructural/functional assessment of tissues and organs, and implant assessment. All but one respondent considered radiology important for research in their discipline, but five indicated that radiology is currently not involved in their research. Radiology research holds the potential for being transformative to medical practice. It is our responsibility to take the lead in studies including radiology and strive towards the highest levels of evidence.Critical relevance statement For radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact, radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies, go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and diagnostic accuracy, and-in a multidisciplinary approach-address clinical unmet needs.Key points• Multiple factors are essential for radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact.• Radiological research needs to go beyond diagnostic accuracy and address unmet clinical needs.• Radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies with a multidisciplinary approach.

Who publishes imaging articles in non-imaging journals? A large sample data-mining study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the weight of imaging and imaging specialists (i.e., affiliated to a radiology/nuclear medicine department) in publications in non-imaging journals.

METHODS

All articles indexed in English on the Embase database between 1989 and 2019 were extracted. The number and affiliation of authors were determined. A naive Bayesian classifier algorithm was trained to classify abstracts as "imaging" or "non-imaging." The main outcome was the number and position of imaging specialists in the authorship of imaging articles published in non-imaging journals. Analyses per medical specialties and per journal impact factor (IF) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 15,787,825 articles were included with 968,259 (6%) "imaging" articles. The proportion of imaging articles increased over time (+ 370%), quicker than the overall academic output. The proportion of imaging specialist among authors grew from 0.58% in 1989-1994 to 1.54% in 2015-2019. About 20% of imaging articles had ≥ 1 imaging specialist among authors. The proportion of imaging articles decreased with the IF (7.3% for IF 0-2.5 vs. 5.1% for IF > 10, p < 0.001), but the proportion of imaging specialist authors in imaging papers with ≥ 1 imaging specialist author increased with the IF (40% for IF 0-2.5, 53% for IF > 10, p < 0.001). There was significant variability across medical specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

The weight of imaging articles and imaging specialist among authors in non-imaging journals has increased over time but remains limited. Most of the authors of imaging publications are not imaging specialists. Imaging specialists among authors in imaging papers are associated with a greater IF.

KEY POINTS

• The proportion of imaging specialist authors in non-imaging journals, though small, has increased significantly. • Marked differences are observed according to medical specialties and the reputation/impact factor of the journal. • Collaboration between imaging specialists and non-specialists is associated with publication in higher impact journals.

Measuring quality of reporting in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in medical imaging: comparison of PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA

OBJECTIVES

To compare the reporting quality measured by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA) vs the original PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in imaging and survey the use of PRISMA-DTA by researchers and endorsement by journals.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of DTA studies published in 2020 and 2021 in Quartile 1 and Quartile 3 medical imaging journals (defined by Journal Citation Reports) were identified through PubMed. The reporting of each systematic review was assessed using PRISMA-DTA, PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-2020. The item scores and overall score were compared among the three checklists. We also examined checklist adoption by the included systematic reviews and surveyed checklist endorsement from author instructions of included journals.

RESULTS

A total of 173 systematic reviews from 66 journals were included. The use of PRISMA-DTA, compared with PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-2020, identified more issues in the reporting of title (proportion of systematic reviews with proper reporting, 27.2% vs 98.8% vs 98.8%), abstract (39.3% vs 97.1% vs 64.7%), eligibility criteria (67.6% vs 94.2% vs 94.2%), search (28.9% vs 72.3% vs 28.9%), definitions for data extraction (14.5% vs 91.9% vs 91.9%), diagnostic accuracy measures (38.2% vs 93.6% vs 93.6%), synthesis of results (28.9% vs 89.6% vs 73.4%) and results of individual studies (40.5% vs 80.3% vs 80.3%). The overall median reporting score measured by PRISMA-DTA (72.0% (interquartile range (IQR), 66.7-77.8%)) was lower than that measured by PRISMA-2009 (88.9% (IQR, 84.0-92.6%)) and similar to that measured by PRISMA-2020 (74.1% (IQR, 66.7-77.8%)). Additionally, PRISMA-DTA was used by only 43 (24.9%) systematic reviews and endorsed by two (3.0%) journals. These trends remained consistent for reviews published in journals with diverse scientific impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PRISMA-DTA may identify more reporting inadequacies compared with the original PRISMA checklists when assessing diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews, especially in critical sections such as title, abstract and methods. However, this tool is not commonly used by researchers and is inadequately endorsed by imaging journals. Our findings suggest a strong need to use PRISMA-DTA for reporting of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews by authors and its endorsement by journals. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Traduction franco-canadienne de l’Assessment of Systematic Reviews Revised (AMSTAR 2) : validation transculturelle et fidélité interjuges

Objective: Produce a French-Canadian translation of AMSTAR 2, affirm its content validity, and examine interrater reliability. Methods: Based on Vallerand's methodological approach, we conducted forward and parallel inverse-translations. Subsequently, an expert panel evaluated the translations to create a preliminary experimental French-Canadian version. A second expert panel examined this version and proposed additional modifications. Twenty future health professionals then rated the second experimental version for ambiguity on a scale (from 1 to 7). The principal co-investigators then reviewed the problematic elements and proposed a pre-official version. To ascertain content validity, a final back-translation was conducted resulting in the official version. Four judges evaluated 13 systematic reviews using the official French-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate interrater reliability. Results: This rigorous adaptation enabled the development of a Franco-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2. Its application demonstrated low ambiguity (mean 1.15; SD 0.26) as well as good overall interrater reliability (total κ > 0.64) across all items. Conclusion: The French-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2 can now support francophone clinicians, educators, and managers in Canada as they undertake evidence-based practice.

A critical appraisal of the quality of guidelines for radiation protection in interventional radiology using the AGREE II tool: A EuroAIM initiative

PURPOSE

To systematically review and assess the methodological quality of guidelines for radiation protection in interventional radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

On April 15^th, 2021, a systematic search for guidelines on radiation protection in interventional radiology was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence databases. Among retrieved guidelines, we then excluded those not primarily focused on radiation protection or on interventional radiology. Authors' professional role and year of publication were recorded for each included guideline. Guideline quality evaluation was performed independently by three authors using the six-domain tool "AGREE II", with an overall guideline quality score divided into three classes: low (<60%), acceptable (60-80%), and good quality (>80%).

RESULTS

Our literature search identified 106 citations: after applying exclusion criteria, 11 guidelines published between 2009 and 2018 were included, most of their authors being interventional radiologists (168/224, 75%). Overall quality of included guidelines was acceptable (median 72%, interquartile range 64-83%), with only one guideline (9%) with overall low quality and four guidelines (36%) with overall good quality. Among AGREE II domains, "Scope and Purpose", "Clarity of Presentations", and "Editorial Independence" had the best results (87%, 76%, and 75% respectively), while "Applicability", "Rigor of Development", and "Stakeholder Involvement" the worst (46%, 49%, and 52% respectively).

CONCLUSION

Considering all guidelines, the overall methodological quality was acceptable with one third of them reaching the highest score class. The "Applicability" domain had the lowest median score, highlighting a practical implementation gap to be addressed by future guidelines.

Critical appraisal of papers reporting recommendation on sarcopenia using the AGREE II tool: a EuroAIM initiative

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The growing interest of medical community about sarcopenia resulted in the production of several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), with an unavoidable variability in terms of the overall quality of those publications. Our aim is to evaluate the quality of CPGs on sarcopenia using the AGREE II instrument.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

We performed an online literature search for sarcopenia CPGs using different databases. Four independent reviewers evaluated the quality of CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. To classify the quality of each guideline, we defined specific thresholds of final score: high-quality if five or more domains scored >60%; average-quality if three or four domains scored >60%; low-quality if ≤2 domains scored >60%.

RESULTS

Our literature search yielded 315 articles, and after applying exclusion criteria our final analysis included 19 CPGs. The overall quality of CPGs was remarkable, as 13/19 (68.4%) were considered of "high-quality" CPGs, with more than four domains reached a score higher than 60%. "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity of Presentations" had the best domain results (78.4% and 73.8%, respectively), while the two domains with the lowest scores were "Rigor of Development" and "Applicability" (61.5% and 58.7%, respectively). Interobserver variability ranged between moderate (0.624) and fair (0.275).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the overall quality of CPGs about sarcopenia was noteworthy, as more than two-third of paper obtained a "high-quality" score. The domain "applicability" had the lowest score, suggesting that emphasis should be put on possible strategies for helping other doctors to implement guideline recommendations in clinical practice.

Overview of MR Imaging Volumetric Quantification in Neurocognitive Disorders

This review article provides a general overview on the various methodologies for quantifying brain structure on magnetic resonance images of the human brain. This overview is followed by examples of applications in Alzheimer dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Other examples will include traumatic brain injury and other neurodegenerative dementias. Finally, an overview of general principles for protocol acquisition of magnetic resonance imaging for volumetric quantification will be discussed along with the current choices of FDA cleared algorithms for use in clinical practice.

Assessing the Quality of Existing Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chemotherapy Drug Extravasation by Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II

Background:

Extravasation is a potentially hazardous event that may occur during chemotherapy. The aim of this study is to assess the quality of existing Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for chemotherapy drug extravasation by Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II).

Materials and Methods:

Valid electronic databases and CPGs from 2007 to August 2018 were searched by keywords of CPGs, extravasation, chemotherapy, and cancer. CPGs were evaluated independently by five experts through AGREE II tool, and the consensus among evaluators was calculated by ICC (Intra-class Correlation Coefficient).

Results:

Five of the 111 CPGs matched the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of CPGs in domains of “scope and purpose,“ “stakeholder involvement,“ “clarity of presentation,“ and “applicability“ were good, in the domain of “rigor of development,“ was acceptable, and in “editorial independence“ domain, it needed more attention of developers of CPGs. The range of assessors' consensus was within a range of moderate to very good (0.55--0.93).

Conclusions:

The methodological quality of existing CPGs of chemotherapy drugs extravasation assessed by AGREE II tool is appropriate. Four CPGs had high level while one had moderate level of quality. Therefore, their use is recommended in the clinic to reduce the risk of chemotherapy extravasation to the entire treatment team and the nurses working in the oncology departments.

Clinical practice guidelines on ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of thyroid nodules: a critical appraisal using AGREE II

PURPOSE

To appraise the quality of current guidelines on fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of thyroid nodules for adults using the AGREE II quality assessment tool.

METHODS

We conducted an online search for guidelines on FNAB of thyroid nodules published between 2013 and October 2018. They were evaluated by four independent reviewers previously trained to apply the AGREE II instrument, which is organized into items and domains. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores for each domain and guideline as well as inter-appraiser agreement.

RESULTS

Six sets of guidelines were included, respectively, provided by the American Thyroid Association (ATA), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology/Associazione Medici Endocrinologi (AACE/ACE/AME), the Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR), the European Thyroid Association (ETA), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the Korean Society of Radiology and National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (KSR/NECA). Five out of the six guidelines (ATA, AACE/ACE/AME, ETA, ACR and KSR/NECA) reached a high level of overall quality, having at least five domain scores >60%. An average level of overall quality was achieved in one case (KSThR recommendations). Inter-appraiser agreement ranged from moderate to excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of guidelines on FNAB of thyroid nodules is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument.

Radiological Clinical Practice Guidelines Published in the Last Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis

Objectives:

To provide a comprehensive review of radiological clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to establish their characteristics and impact in the field of radiology.

Material and Methods:

A MEDLINE search was performed for CPGs in which at least half of the authors were from the radiology or imaging department. The following information was extracted from each CPG: year of publication, journal, provider, number of authors, number of pages, number of references, collaboration, country of origin, radiological subspecialty, imaging modality used, topic, source of funding, and number and pattern of citations.

Results:

In total, 120 radiological CPGs published between July 2006 and June 2016 were identified. One hundred nine (90.8%) radiological CPGs were published in radiology journals, 96 (80.0%) were provided by the scientific community, 108 (90.0%) were collaborative studies, 64 (53.3%) originated from the United States, 36 (30.0%) were concerned with the field of vascular/interventional radiology, 38 (31.7%) used combined imaging techniques, 52 (43.3%) were focused on interpretation and management, and 118 (98.4%) were not funded. Radiological CPGs included a median of 8 authors, 9 pages, and 49 references. The median number of citations and annual citations were 18 (range, 0–540) and 3.5 (range, 0–75.6), respectively.

Conclusion:

Our study presents several interesting insights into the characteristics and impact of radiological CPGs.

A Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Glioma Imaging Guidelines Using the AGREE II Tool: A EuroAIM Initiative

Background: Following the EuroAIM initiative to assess the quality of medical imaging guidelines by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, we aimed to evaluate the quality of the current imaging guidelines in patients with gliomas.

Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify eligible imaging guidelines considered in the management of adult patients with gliomas. The selected guidelines were evaluated using the AGREE II instrument by four independent appraisers. The agreement among the four appraisers was estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis.

Results: Seven guidelines were selected for the appraisal. Six out of the seven guidelines showed an average level of quality with only one showing a low quality. The highest scores were found in Domain 1 “Scope and purpose” (mean score = 81.2%) and Domain 4 “Clarity of presentation” (mean score = 77.6%). The remaining domains showed a low level of quality and, in particular, Domain 5 “Applicability” was the most critical with a mean score of 41.7%, mainly related to a minor attention to barriers and facilitators as well as costs and resources implications of applying the guidelines. The ICC analysis showed a very good agreement among the four appraisers with ICC values ranging from 0.907 to 0.993.

Conclusions: The available guidelines on glioma imaging emerged as of average quality according to the AGREE II tool analysis. Based on these results, further efforts should be made in order to involve different professional bodies and stakeholders and increase patient and public involvement in any future guideline drafting as well as to improve the applicability of these guidelines into the clinical practice.

A critical appraisal of the quality of head and neck cancer imaging guidelines using the AGREE II tool: A EuroAIM initiative

Background

Diagnostic imaging guidelines are increasingly embraced in oncologic imaging in order to improve examinations appropriateness and technical quality. The usefulness of guidelines employment in clinical practice is dramatically related to the quality of the guidelines themselves. However, an extreme variability in guidelines’ quality may occur. Following a European Network for the Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM) initiative, the aim of this study was to assess the quality of the available guidelines regarding head and neck cancer (HNC) imaging.

Methods

A literature search was conducted to identify imaging guidelines focused on HNC. Selected guidelines were evaluated by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation version 2.0 (AGREE II) tool, which comprises 23 key items, rated on a 7‐point scale (1—strongly disagree to 7—strongly agree) and organized within six domains. For each domain, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the agreement among appraisers’ scores.

Results

After literature search, three guidelines were selected and evaluated. One guideline scored “average” as overall quality, while the remaining two scored a “low” overall quality. The highest result (total score = 75.0% ± 19.3%) was obtained in domain 4 (Clarity of presentation) while the lowest (total score = 27.1% ± 4.2%) in domain 6 (Editorial independence). ICC analysis showed a very good agreement (range: 0.932‐0.961) among the four appraisers.

Conclusions

Our results showed a heterogeneous quality of existing guidelines in HNC imaging. Issues raised from this appraisal should be considered when developing future guidelines on HNC imaging.

A critical appraisal of the quality of low back pain practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool and comparison with previous evaluations: a EuroAIM initiative

PURPOSE

To assess the methodologic quality of guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP) and compare their recommendations.

METHODS

No ethics committee approval was needed for this systematic review. In March 2017, a systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to find practice guidelines of assessment and management of LBP. The evaluation of guidelines quality was performed independently by four authors using the AGREE II tool, and the results were compared with previous appraisals performed in 2004 and 2009.

RESULTS

Of 114 retrieved guidelines, eight were appraised. All except one reached the level of "acceptable" in overall result, with two of them reaching the highest scores. Only two guidelines reached a level of "acceptable" in every domain; the others had at least one domain with low scores. The guidelines had the higher scores (range = 63-94%) on "Scope and purpose" and "Clarity of presentation" (47-89%). "Stakeholder Involvement" has the highest variability between the guidelines results (40-96%). "Rigor of Development" reached an intermediate mean result (34-90%), "Applicability" (42-70%), and "Editorial Independence" (38-85%). Only three guidelines had a radiologist among authors and reached higher scores compared to guidelines without a radiologist among the authors. Compared to previous assessments, low-level guidelines were 53% in 2004, 36% in 2009, and 13% in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all guidelines, only one had a "low" overall score, while half of them were rated as of "high" quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.

Chest adipose tissue distribution in patients with morbid obesity

Purpose

Obesity is a well-known of risk factor for atherosclerosis and the amount of visceral adipose tissue is considered as an independent predictor of coronary artery disease (CAD). An aim of the study was to investigate the distribution of intrathoracic adipose tissue in morbidly obese patients.

Material and methods

Fifty-one patients with morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²) and thirty controls were scanned in a coronary calcium scoring protocol. Control group consisted of patients scanned due to a clinical suspicion of CAD, who did not fulfill obesity criteria. The amount of adipose tissue was measured as epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) thickness, pericoronary fat (PCF) thickness, total intra-pericardial fat (IPF) volume, and total intrathoracic fat (ITF) volume.

Results

Mean BMI of obese patients and controls was 47.3 and 26.5, respectively (p < 0.0001). Patients with obesity and controls did not differ with respect to mean EAT, mean PCF, and IPF. However, ITF was lower in obesity group than in control group (268 vs. 332 cm³, respectively; p < 0.03). Moreover, ROC analysis presented relation between obesity and the superior EAT thickness, PCF at LCX, mean PCF, ITF, and chest soft tissue (CST) thickness (p < 0.03). CST thickness of > 60 mm was the parameter that presented the strongest association with morbid obesity (AUC 0.95; p < 0.0001).

Conlcusions

Increased chest soft tissue thickness but not the increased intrathoracic adipose tissue volume was associated with morbid obesity. Since the quantity of the pericardiac fat is not directly related to the obesity, its accumulation may be related to a mechanism different than that of subcutaneous adipose tissue growth.

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative

Objectives

Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK-US) for adults.

Methods

Between June and July 2016, we conducted an online search for MSK-US guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II tool. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers’ scores using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Five guidelines were included in this appraisal. They were published between 2001 and 2014. Our appraisal showed intermediate results, with four out of five guidelines scoring “average” as overall quality. Domain 1 (scope and purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 71.1% ± 18.7%). Domain 6 (editorial independence) had the lowest score (total score = 26.3% ± 19.3%). Interobserver agreement was very good for all the evaluated guidelines (ICC ranged between 0.932 and 0.956).

Conclusions

Overall, quality of MSK-US guidelines ranges from low to average when evaluated using the AGREE II tool. The editorial independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines.

Main messages

• Four of five guidelines on MSK-US had an average quality level.

• Scope/purpose had the highest score (71.1% ± 18.7%).

• Editorial independence had the lowest score (26.3% ± 19.3%).

• Interobserver agreement was very good (ranges: 0.932–0.956).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0563-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

Objectives

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on DXA for adults.

Methods

Between June and July 2016 we conducted an online search for DXA guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II instrument. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers’ scores.

Results

Four out of 59 guidelines met inclusion criteria and were included. They were published between 2005 and 2014. Three out of four guidelines reached a high level of quality, having at least five domain scores higher than 60%. Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 86.8 ± 3.7%). Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had the lowest score (total score = 54.7 ± 12.5%). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).

Conclusions

Overall, the quality of DXA guidelines is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The Editorial Independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines.

Main messages

• Three of four guidelines on DXA had a high quality level (>60%).

• Scope/purpose had the highest score (86.8 ± 3.7%).

• Editorial Independence had the lowest score (54.7 ± 12.5%).

• Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is advanced neuroimaging for neuroradiologists? A systematic review of the scientific literature of the last decade

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate if advanced neuroimaging research is mainly conducted by imaging specialists, we investigated the number of first authorships by radiologists and non-radiologist scientists in articles published in the field of advanced neuroimaging in the past 10 years.

METHODS

Articles in the field of advanced neuroimaging identified in this retrospective bibliometric analysis were divided in four groups, depending on the imaging technique used. For all included studies, educational background of the first authors was recorded (based on available online curriculum vitae) and classified in subgroups, depending on their specialty. Finally, journal impact factors were recorded and comparatively assessed among subgroups as a metric of research quality.

RESULTS

A total number of 3831 articles were included in the study. Radiologists accounted as first authors for only 12.8 % of these publications, while 56.9 % of first authors were researchers without a medical degree. Mean impact factor (IF) of journals with non-MD researchers as first authors was significantly higher than the MD subgroup (p < 10^-20), while mean IF of journals with radiologists as first authors was significantly lower than articles authored by other MD specialists (p < 10^-11).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the studies in the field of advanced neuroimaging in the last decade is conducted by professional figures other than radiologists, who account for less than the 13 % of the publications. Furthermore, the mean IF value of radiologists-authored articles was the lowest among all subgroups. These results, taken together, should question the radiology community about its future role in the development of advanced neuroimaging.

Evaluation the Aortic Aneurysm Remodeling After a Successful Stentgraft Implantation

Background

Routine imaging follow-up after endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is mainly aimed at detection of endoleaks. The aim of the study was to assess changes in the size of the abdominal aortic aneurysm sack using CT angiography (CTA) after successful treatment using endovascular stent graft implantation.

Material/Methods

A retrospective analysis of CTA results included 102 patients aged 54–88, who had no postoperative complications. Patients underwent CTA before EVAR and after the treatment (mean time between studies, 7.6 months). The largest cross-sectional area of the aneurysm sac was measured using a curved multiplanar reconstruction. A change of the aneurysm cross-sectional over 10% was considered significant.

Results

The average cross-sectional area decreased after EVAR by 3% and this change was not statistically significant. Regression of the cross-sectional area was observed in 18.6% of patients, progression was in 23.5%, and no change was seen in 57.8%. Cross-sectional areas before and after EVAR were significantly correlated (r=0.75, p<0.0001). There was no correlation between the cross-sectional area change after EVAR and patients’ age or the time between the treatment and the follow-up CTA. Cross-sectional area before the treatment predicted changes in the aneurysm size after EVAR (p=0.0045).

Conclusions

Remodeling of abdominal aortic aneurysms after EVAR is not uniform. The change of aneurysm size depends on the initial aneurysm size but not on the time from EVAR. The size of the aneurysm after EVAR should not be considered as a measure of the treatment efficacy.

Anatomical Evaluation of the Pulmonary Veins and the Left Atrium Using Computed Tomography Before Catheter Ablation: Reproducibility of Measurements

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common supraventricular arrhythmia. ECG-gated MDCT seems to be currently a method of choice for pre-ablation anatomical mapping due to an excellent resolution and truly isotropic three-dimensional nature. The aim of this study was to establish the between-subject variability and inter-observer reproducibility of anatomical evaluation of the pulmonary veins (PV) and the left atrium (LA) using computed tomography.

Material/Methods

A retrospective analysis included 42 patients with AF, who were scheduled for a cardiac CT for ablation planning. Images were assessed by two independent radiologists using a semi-automatic software tool. The left atrium anatomy (volume, AP diameter), anatomy of the pulmonary veins (number, ostia diameters and surface area) were evaluated. The relative between-subject variability and the inter-observer variability of measurements were calculated.

Results

The heart rate during scanning ranged from 50 to 133/min. (mean 79.1/min.) and all examinations were of adequate image quality. Accessory pulmonary veins were found in 24% of patients. Between-subject variability of the PV ostial cross-sectional area ranged from 33% to 48%. The variability of the left atrium size was 21% for the diameter and 35% for the volume. The inter-observer agreement for the detection of accessory pulmonary veins was good (κ=0.73; 95% CI, 0.54–0.93).

Conclusions

Between-subject variability of the pulmonary vein ostial cross-sectional area and the left artial volume is substantial. The anatomical assessment of the pulmonary vein ostia and the left atrium size in computed tomography presents a good inter-observer reproducibility.

Most Common Publication Types in Radiology Journals:: What is the Level of Evidence?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the most common publication types in radiology journals, as well as temporal trends and association with citation frequency.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was searched to extract all published articles having the following "Publication Type" indices: "validation studies," "meta-analysis," "clinical trial," "comparative study," "evaluation study," "guideline," "multicenter study," "randomized study," "review," "editorial," "case report," and "technical report." The percentage of articles within each category published within clinical radiology journals was computed. Normalized percentages for each category were also computed on an annual basis. Citation counts within a 2-year window following publication were obtained using Web of Science. Overall trends were assessed.

RESULTS

Publication types with the highest fraction in radiology journals were technical reports, evaluation studies, and case reports (4.8% to 5.8%). Publication types with the lowest fraction in radiology journals were randomized trials, multicenter studies, and meta-analyses (0.8% to 1.5%). Case reports showed a significant decrease since 1999, with accelerating decline since 2007 (P = 0.002). Publication types with highest citation counts were meta-analyses, guidelines, and multicenter studies (8.1 ± 10.7 to 12.9 ± 5.1). Publication types with lowest citation counts were case reports, editorials, and technical reports (1.4 ± 2.4 to 2.9 ± 4.3). The representation in radiology journals and citation frequency of the publication types showed weak inverse correlation (r = -0.372).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiology journals have historically had relatively greater representation of less frequently cited publication types. Various strategies, including methodological training, multidisciplinary collaboration, national support networks, as well as encouragement of higher level of evidence by funding agencies and radiology journals themselves, are warranted to improve the impact of radiological research.

Advanced neuroimaging in the clinic: critical appraisal of the evidence base

The shortage of high-quality systematic reviews in the field of radiology limits evidence-based integration of imaging methods into clinical practice and may perpetuate misconceptions regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of imaging techniques for specific applications. Diffusion tensor imaging for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (DTI-mTBI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI for patients with glioma (DSC-glioma) are applications of quantitative neuroimaging, which similarly detect manifestations of disease where conventional neuroimaging techniques cannot. We performed a critical appraisal of reviews, based on the current evidence-based medicine methodology, addressing the ability of DTI-mTBI and DSC-glioma to (a) detect brain abnormalities and/or (b) predict clinical outcomes. 23 reviews of DTI-mTBI and 26 reviews of DSC-glioma met criteria for inclusion. All reviews addressed detection of brain abnormalities, whereas 12 DTI-mTBI reviews and 22 DSC-glioma reviews addressed prediction of a clinical outcome. All reviews were assessed using a critical appraisal worksheet consisting of 19 yes/no questions. Reviews were graded according to the total number of positive responses and the 2011 Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence criteria. Reviews addressing DTI-mTBI detection had moderate quality, while those addressing DSC-glioma were of low quality. Reviews addressing prediction of outcomes for both applications were of low quality. Five DTI-mTBI reviews, but only one review of DSC-glioma met criteria for classification as a meta-analysis/systematic/quantitative review.

Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement

A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a commonly used tool to assess the quality of systematic reviews; however, modifications are needed to improve its usability, reliability, and validity. In this commentary, we summarize our experience and the experiences of others who have used AMSTAR and provide suggestions for its improvement. We propose that AMSTAR should modify a number of individual items and their instructions and responses to make them more congruent with an assessment of the methodologic quality of systematic reviews. We recommend adding new items and modifying existing items to assess the quality of the body of evidence and to address subgroup and sensitivity analyses. More detailed instructions are needed for scoring individual items across multiple reviewers, and we recommend that a total score should not be calculated. These suggestions need to be empirically tested prior to implementation.