Scientific Publications Database

Article Title: Are Study and Journal Characteristics Reliable Indicators of Truth in Imaging Research?
Authors: Frank, Robert A.; McInnes, Matthew D. F.; Levine, Deborah; Kressel, Herbert Y.; Jesurum, Julia S.; Petrcich, William; McGrath, Trevor A.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.
Journal: RADIOLOGY Volume 287 Issue 1
Date of Publication:2018
Abstract:
Purpose: To evaluate whether journal-level variables (impact factor, cited half-life, and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] endorsement) and study-level variables (citation rate, timing of publication, and order of publication) are associated with the distance between primary study results and summary estimates from meta-analyses.Materials and Methods: MEDLINE was searched for meta-analyses of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies, published from January 2005 to April 2016. Data on journal-level and primary-study variables were extracted for each meta-analysis. Primary studies were dichotomized by variable as first versus subsequent publication, publication before versus after STARD introduction, STARD endorsement, or by median split. The mean absolute deviation of primary study estimates from the corresponding summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity was compared between groups. Means and confidence intervals were obtained by using bootstrap resampling; P values were calculated by using a t test.Results: Ninety-eight meta-analyses summarizing 1458 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial variability, but no significant differences, in deviations from the summary estimate between paired groups (P=.0041 in all comparisons). The largest difference found was in mean deviation for sensitivity, which was observed for publication timing, where studies published first on a topic demonstrated a mean deviation that was 2.5 percentage points smaller than subsequently published studies (P =.005). For journal-level factors, the greatest difference found (1.8 percentage points; P =.088) was in mean deviation for sensitivity in journals with impact factors above the median compared with those below the median.Conclusion: Journal-and study-level variables considered important when evaluating diagnostic accuracy information to guide clinical decisions are not systematically associated with distance from the truth; critical appraisal of individual articles is recommended.