Objective
To evaluate whether imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions or titles are more likely to reach full-text publication than those with negative (or ...neutral) conclusions or titles.
Methods
Diagnostic accuracy research abstracts were included if they were presented at the 2011 or 2012 Radiological Society of North America conference. Full-text publication status at 5 years post conference abstract submission was determined. Conclusion and title positivity of conference abstracts were extracted, as well as potential confounding factors. The associations of conclusion and title positivity with publication status at 5 years post conference abstract submission were assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model. Conditional odds ratios were calculated to express the strength of associations, adjusting for the confounders.
Results
In total, 282/400 (71%) of included conference abstracts reached full-text publication. A total of 246 out of 337 (74%) conference abstracts with positive conclusions resulted in full-text publications, compared with 26/48 (54%) with neutral conclusions and 5/15 (33%) with negative conclusions. In multivariable logistic regression, conclusion positivity was significantly associated with full-text publication (odds ratio 3.6; 95% CI 1.9–6.7 for conference abstracts with positive conclusions, compared with those with non-positive conclusions); this did not apply to title positivity (odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 0.47–3.0).
Conclusion
Imaging conference abstracts with positive conclusions were more likely to be published as full-text articles. Title positivity was not associated with publication. This preferential publication pattern may lead to an overrepresentation of positive studies in the literature. An overrepresentation of positive studies may contribute to inflated estimates of test accuracy and has the potential to adversely influence patient care.
Key Points
• Imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions were more likely to be reported as full-text articles than those with non-positive conclusions.
• The majority (75%) of imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions were published, compared with only 53% and 33% with neutral and negative conclusions, respectively.
• Conclusion positivity remained associated with the full-text publication of conference abstracts when controlling for multiple potential confounding variables.
Purpose:
To examine if tweeting bias exists within imaging literature by determining if diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive titles or conclusions are tweeted more than non-positive ...studies.
Methods:
DTA studies published between October 2011 to April 2016 were included. Positivity of titles and conclusions were assessed independently and in duplicate, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A negative binomial regression analysis controlling for confounding variables was performed to assess the relationship between title or conclusion positivity and tweets an article received in the 100 days post-publication.
Results:
354 DTA studies were included. Twenty-four (7%) titles and 300 (85%) conclusions were positive (or positive with qualifier); 1 (0.3%) title and 23 (7%) conclusions were negative; and 329 (93%) titles and 26 (7%) conclusions were neutral. Studies with positive, negative, and neutral titles received a mean of 0.38, 0.00, and 0.45 tweets per study; while those with positive, negative, and neutral conclusions received a mean of 0.44, 0.61, and 0.38 tweets per study. Regression coefficients were -0.05 (SE 0.46) for positive relative to non-positive titles, and -0.09 (SE 0.31) for positive relative to non-positive conclusions. The positivity of the title (P = 0.91) or conclusion (P = 0.76) was not significantly associated with the number of tweets an article received.
Conclusions:
The positivity of the title or conclusion for DTA studies does not influence the amount of tweets it receives suggesting that tweet bias is not present among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies. Study protocol available at https://osf.io/hdk2m/
The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately ...specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies.
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19.
We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.
We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates.
The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity.
Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.
Rural communities suffer from an unequal access to health-care resources. The purpose of this study was to characterise Emergency Departments (EDs) in the Champlain Local Health Integration Network ...(LHIN) and determine their barriers to recruitment and retention of emergency physicians.
A survey was sent to the 17 ED chiefs in the Champlain LHIN area by E-mail through May to December 2019. Results were analyzed for common themes and trends.
Seven of the 17 hospitals responded to the survey. The average number of physicians staffing the ED was 16, with the majority being Canadian College of Family Physicians certified without additional emergency training. Common described barriers to recruitment include lack of incentives for physicians to work in rural communities, lack of available resources at rural centres, such as specialists and poor flexibility in terms of shift coverage. Barriers to retention included limited incentives to remain in rural communities.
This study analyzed the demographics and barriers to recruitment and retention in rural EDs. These results can be used to help build strategies that encourage physicians to practise in rural EDs.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive conclusions or titles have a shorter time to publication than those with nonpositive ...(i.e., negative or neutral) conclusions or titles.
We included primary imaging DTA studies from systematic reviews published in 2015. The conclusion and title of each study were extracted, and their positivity was classified independently in duplicate. The time from study completion to publication was extracted and calculated. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate associations of conclusion and title positivity with time to publication, with adjustment made for potentially confounding variables.
A total of 774 imaging DTA studies were included; time from study completion to publication could be calculated for 516 studies. The median time from completion to publication was 18 months (interquartile range, 13-26 months) for the 413 studies with positive conclusions, 23 months (interquartile range, 16-33 months) for the 63 studies with neutral conclusions, and 25 months (interquartile range, 15-38 months) for the 40 studies with negative conclusions. A positive conclusion was associated with a shorter time from study completion to publication compared with a non-positive conclusion (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.68). Of all included studies, 39 (5%) had positive titles, 731 (94%) had neutral titles, and 4 (< 1%) had negative titles. Positive titles were not significantly associated with a shorter time to study publication (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.75-1.69).
Positive conclusions (but not titles) were associated with a shorter time from study completion to publication. This finding may contribute to an overrepresentation of positive results in the imaging DTA literature.
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, conclusion positivity, and completeness of reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals.
Study Type
Meta‐research.
Population
s 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, conclusion positivity positive vs. neutral/negative, number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies STARD for 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 s (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference 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 s adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82–1.18). Manuscripts with positive 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 s adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87–1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference s 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.
PDF
