Source: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119892
Is
![PLOS]()
purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and
completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses
(MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is
associated with citation rates.
SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007–Dec 2011, in radiology
journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The
Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)
checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study
completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then
searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman
correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between
AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were
performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF
on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with
interquartile range (IQR) provided.
studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR
result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR:
21–25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73
citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). There was a positive
correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA
citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002)
respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA
results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.
is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a
reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for
journal IF and journal 5-year IF.
![Fig 1]()
![Fig 2]()
![Fig 1]()
![Fig 2]()
![Fig 1]()
![Fig 2]()
It is widely considered a measure of journal prestige, and is often
used to measure the research performance of investigators and
institutions [2–4].
As a journal’s IF depends on the number of times a journal’s articles
are cited, there has been interest across a variety of medical
specialties to determine factors which are associated with citation [5–9]. More recently, there has been increased reference to journal IF in radiology publications [10–13].
A
journal’s IF is calculated by determining the number of times the
articles published in a journal over a preceding period of time are
cited by indexed journals within a year, divided by the total number of
“citable items” published in the journal during the same preceding
period of time [14].
This calculation is often skewed by outlying articles, specifically
articles that receive a high number of post-publication citations [10,15].
A journal’s IF therefore does not represent the number of citations for
each individual article, but rather the sum of all citations of all
published articles. The impact of any single article cannot be assumed
based on the IF of the journal it was published in [16,17].
As
one of the highest levels of evidence available in the diagnostic
imaging literature, systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) are
conducted in attempt to produce high impact findings [18].
These pool existing data to eliminate bias, increase sample size and
ultimately provide stronger answers to clinical questions than can be
achieved from any individual component study [19–21].
Yet factors associated with post-publication citations of diagnostic
imaging related SR & MA have not been well characterized. In
particular, it is unclear if the quality or completeness of SR & MA
affects how often they are cited.
Several tools have been developed to quantify the quality and completeness of SR & MA [22–24]. These include “The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews” (AMSTAR) [22]
to assess quality, and the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) statement to assess completeness of
reporting [24].
The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and
completeness of reporting of SR & MA published in high IF radiology
journals are associated with individual article citation rates.
search was performed in MEDLINE to identify SR & MA published in
radiology journals with an impact factor >2.75 based on the Thomson
ISI ranking. A radiology journal was defined as any journal included on
the Thomson ISI ranking that primarily published articles related to any
aspect of medical imaging. This included any radiology subspecialty
specific journals. Medical imaging related SR & MA published in
non-radiology journals were excluded. A threshold of 2.75 was chosen to
include studies in the most frequently cited radiology journals while
limiting the total number of studies to a manageable amount. The search
was limited to English language articles published between Jan 2007–Dec
2011. Two investigators independently retrieved and reviewed all
included articles, with discrepancies resolved by consensus (A.S.T., a
third year radiology resident and M.D.F.M., a staff radiologist with
more than 3 years of experience in the performance and review of SR
& MA).
Data
extraction was performed independently on included articles by two
investigators (A.S.T. and R.H., both third year radiology residents) and
assessed using AMSTAR & PRISMA checklists (S1 Fig. and S1 Table).
The first ten articles were reviewed in consensus to become familiar
with application of the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Following this,
all remaining articles were reviewed independently. Discrepancies were
resolved through consensus or, if there was persistent disagreement,
discussed with a third investigator (M.D.F.M.). The detailed methods can
be found in the previously published paper titled “Association of study
quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting
and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology
journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?” [25].
number of citations for each individual SR & MA was documented
based on the number of citations indexed through Google Scholar [26] as of April 5, 2014. A post-publication citation rate
was then calculated by dividing the total number of citations for each
article by the total number of months since the earliest date of
publication (e.g. epub ahead of print date) [27,28].
The purpose of using a citation rate rather than absolute
post-publication citation counts was to eliminate the effect of varying
amounts of time since publication, since studies published earlier have
had more time to accumulate citations.
AMSTAR and PRISMA results were reported, along with the interobserver
agreement as calculated using the kappa coefficient (κ) for all SR &
MA except the first ten, which were reviewed in consensus. Spearman
correlation coefficients (ρ) were used to assess for correlation between
AMSTAR result and citation rate, PRISMA result and citation rate,
journal IF and citation rate, and journal 5-year IF and citation rate. A
multivariate analysis was performed: Spearman partial correlations were
performed to assess the associations between AMSTAR or PRISMA results
and post-publication citation rate while controlling for the effect of
journal IF and journal 5-year IF. Scatter plots were created to
demonstrate the distribution of citation rates relative to AMSTAR and
PRISMA results with polynomial lines fitted to data using LOESS (local
polynomial regression fitting) [29].
All statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS
Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA). Values are reported as medians with
interquartile range (IQR).
was excluded from our study since it was not a systematic review. The
median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was
23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The overall inter-observer agreement was moderate
for the PRISMA results with κ = 0.57, and higher for the AMSTAR results
with κ = 0.69. The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73
citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). Scatter plots show
the distribution of citation rates relative to AMSTAR result (Fig. 1) and PRISMA result (Fig. 2).
![thumbnail]()
![thumbnail]()
A positive correlation was observed between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rates; ρ = 0.323 (P = 0.0002) and ρ = 0.327 (P = 0.0002) respectively. Slightly stronger correlation was observed between journal IF and citation rates; ρ = 0.333 (P = 0.0001), and journal 5-year IF and citation rates; ρ = 0.379 (P<0.0001).
After
multivariate analysis, a positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and
PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ = 0.243 (P = 0.006) and ρ = 0.256 (P = 0.004) respectively. Similarly, a positive correlation persisted after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ = 0.235 (P = 0.008) and ρ = 0.243 (P = 0.006) respectively.
results suggest that the quality and completeness of SR & MA
reported in high impact radiology journals is associated with
post-publication citation rates. This association persisted on
multivariate analysis. Although nearly the same study population was
used as in a study by Tunis et al. [25], the purpose of our study was entirely different. Thus we felt an independent publication was warranted.
Radiology
journals with an IF >2.75 may be more likely to publish SR & MA.
Even though we limited our assessment to journals with a high IF, our
use of multivariate analysis to partial out the effect of journal IF and
5-year IF should help correct for the fact that these journals are more
frequently cited. Despite including only “high impact” journals, at the
time of our analysis, none of the journals required submission of a
PRISMA checklist along with a submitted manuscript. Radiology
was the only journal that had endorsed the PRISMA statement. It is our
hope that our findings encourage editors to endorse and authors to
adhere to the PRISMA checklist in the future.
studies have investigated factors associated with post-publication
citation counts. Several factors shown to correlate with more citations
include: study design and study topic in the urology literature [5];
high levels of evidence, large sample size, multi-institutional studies
and conflict of interest disclosure in the orthopedic surgery
literature [6]; extended description of statistical analysis [7]; statistically significant papers in the psychiatry literature [8]; being indexed in numerous databases, number of authors, clinical relevance scores and number of cited references [9]; and article length in the general medicine literature [160].
We are unaware of any prior work assessing the effect of SR & MA
study quality and completeness on post-publication citation rates.
A study by Royle et al. investigated factors associated with higher citation counts of SR [16].
They found that the number of authors, first author from the United
States, an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms, type of intervention
classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening, and having an
international collaboration all correlated with increased citation
counts. Similar to our study, they found that journal IF was a stronger
predictor of citations.
A
prior investigation of studies that were originally submitted to an
emergency medicine specialty meeting found study design and quality did
not correlate with post-publication citation rates [161].
Unlike in our study, they did not exclusively evaluate SR & MA, did
not apply the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists, and did not specifically
look at the diagnostic imaging literature. Similar to our study and the
study by Royle et al., they found that journal IF was more important
than any other variable for post-publication counts.
It
is interesting to note that our results confirm previous
findings—namely that higher quality studies are cited more frequently.
It is also interesting to note that the median number of citations/month
was 0.73 (8.7 citations/year); this is considerably higher than the
number of citations typically seen in our included cohort of radiology
journals whose 2011 impact factors range from 2.75–6.07 [162]. This supports prior findings that studies of higher levels of evidence are cited more often [5,6,163].
are several limitations to this study. Cross-referencing Google Scholar
citation counts with other known citation databases such as Scopus [164] or the Thomson Reuters Web of Science [165] may have been beneficial since absolute citation counts have been shown to vary between databases [166].
However we were comparing relative citation counts between articles,
and several studies have shown a strong correlation between Google
Scholar citations counts and the Thomson Reuters Web of Science citation
counts [167–169]. Furthermore, Google Scholar is arguably more comprehensive than other citation databases in certain fields [170,171].
Another limitation was that our calculation of citation rate, by
dividing the total number of citations by time since publication,
assumes that the citation frequency is independent of the time since
publication. Given the difficulty in predicting the time course of
citations, which can vary considerably over time between articles and
depend on multiple factors including the article topic and the journal
of publication, this could introduce a source of bias in our analysis [172–174].
However we felt that our calculated citation rate based on the number
of citations over a three to seven year period following publication was
adequate and that any bias is likely to apply evenly over all studies,
thus minimizing the impact on our study conclusions. Furthermore, the
interface of Google Scholar and other citation indexes do not allow for
practical extraction of monthly citation information.
Several additional limitations outlined and addressed by Tunis et al. [25]
are applicable to our study: the assessment of journals was not blinded
to the journal or time of publication, our search was limited to
radiology journals with high IF and thus does not represent the totality
of the radiology literature, the selection of impact factor threshold
was somewhat arbitrary (and was chosen as a practical means to result in
a reasonable number of articles to review), and finally our
interobserver agreement was only moderate. We believe that our moderate
interobserver agreement was due to many items being flagged as unclear
by one reviewer to be discussed with the other.
conclusion, there is positive correlation between the quality and the
completeness of SR & MA published in high impact radiology journals
with citation rate, which persists when adjusted for journal IF and
journal 5-year IF. Although citation counts took on a wide range of
values for a particular AMSTAR and PRISMA score, this study provides
statistical evidence against there being “no relationship” with study
quality and completeness and post-publication citations. This reinforces
the importance of complete reporting and following publishing
guidelines for authors of SR and MA, and might encourage more journals
to endorse these guidelines.
and designed the experiments: MM CvdP WP AT RH. Performed the
experiments: CvdP WP AT RH. Analyzed the data: MM CvdP WP. Contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools: CvdP AT RH. Wrote the paper: MM CvdP
WP AT RH.
PLOS ONE: Is Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation Rates?
Is
Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated
with Citation Rates?
- Published: March 16, 2015
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119892
Abstract
Purpose
Thepurpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and
completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses
(MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is
associated with citation rates.
Methods
AllSR and MA published in English between Jan 2007–Dec 2011, in radiology
journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The
Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)
checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study
completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then
searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman
correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between
AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were
performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF
on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with
interquartile range (IQR) provided.
Results
129studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR
result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR:
21–25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73
citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). There was a positive
correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA
citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002)
respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA
results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.
Conclusion
Thereis a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a
reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for
journal IF and journal 5-year IF.
Figures
Citation: van der Pol
CB, McInnes MDF, Petrcich W, Tunis AS, Hanna R (2015) Is Quality and
Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation
Rates? PLoS ONE 10(3):
e0119892.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892
Academic Editor: Terence J. Quinn, University of Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: July 15, 2014; Accepted: January 20, 2015; Published: March 16, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 van der Pol et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: Financial support from the University of Ottawa Department of Radiology for statistical analysis.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
CB, McInnes MDF, Petrcich W, Tunis AS, Hanna R (2015) Is Quality and
Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation
Rates? PLoS ONE 10(3):
e0119892.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892
Academic Editor: Terence J. Quinn, University of Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: July 15, 2014; Accepted: January 20, 2015; Published: March 16, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 van der Pol et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: Financial support from the University of Ottawa Department of Radiology for statistical analysis.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Impact factor (IF) is a metric that attempts to quantify the overall citation rate of a journal [1].It is widely considered a measure of journal prestige, and is often
used to measure the research performance of investigators and
institutions [2–4].
As a journal’s IF depends on the number of times a journal’s articles
are cited, there has been interest across a variety of medical
specialties to determine factors which are associated with citation [5–9]. More recently, there has been increased reference to journal IF in radiology publications [10–13].
A
journal’s IF is calculated by determining the number of times the
articles published in a journal over a preceding period of time are
cited by indexed journals within a year, divided by the total number of
“citable items” published in the journal during the same preceding
period of time [14].
This calculation is often skewed by outlying articles, specifically
articles that receive a high number of post-publication citations [10,15].
A journal’s IF therefore does not represent the number of citations for
each individual article, but rather the sum of all citations of all
published articles. The impact of any single article cannot be assumed
based on the IF of the journal it was published in [16,17].
As
one of the highest levels of evidence available in the diagnostic
imaging literature, systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) are
conducted in attempt to produce high impact findings [18].
These pool existing data to eliminate bias, increase sample size and
ultimately provide stronger answers to clinical questions than can be
achieved from any individual component study [19–21].
Yet factors associated with post-publication citations of diagnostic
imaging related SR & MA have not been well characterized. In
particular, it is unclear if the quality or completeness of SR & MA
affects how often they are cited.
Several tools have been developed to quantify the quality and completeness of SR & MA [22–24]. These include “The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews” (AMSTAR) [22]
to assess quality, and the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) statement to assess completeness of
reporting [24].
The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and
completeness of reporting of SR & MA published in high IF radiology
journals are associated with individual article citation rates.
Materials and Methods
Study selection and data extraction
Asearch was performed in MEDLINE to identify SR & MA published in
radiology journals with an impact factor >2.75 based on the Thomson
ISI ranking. A radiology journal was defined as any journal included on
the Thomson ISI ranking that primarily published articles related to any
aspect of medical imaging. This included any radiology subspecialty
specific journals. Medical imaging related SR & MA published in
non-radiology journals were excluded. A threshold of 2.75 was chosen to
include studies in the most frequently cited radiology journals while
limiting the total number of studies to a manageable amount. The search
was limited to English language articles published between Jan 2007–Dec
2011. Two investigators independently retrieved and reviewed all
included articles, with discrepancies resolved by consensus (A.S.T., a
third year radiology resident and M.D.F.M., a staff radiologist with
more than 3 years of experience in the performance and review of SR
& MA).
Data
extraction was performed independently on included articles by two
investigators (A.S.T. and R.H., both third year radiology residents) and
assessed using AMSTAR & PRISMA checklists (S1 Fig. and S1 Table).
The first ten articles were reviewed in consensus to become familiar
with application of the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Following this,
all remaining articles were reviewed independently. Discrepancies were
resolved through consensus or, if there was persistent disagreement,
discussed with a third investigator (M.D.F.M.). The detailed methods can
be found in the previously published paper titled “Association of study
quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting
and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology
journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?” [25].
Outcome measure assessment
Thenumber of citations for each individual SR & MA was documented
based on the number of citations indexed through Google Scholar [26] as of April 5, 2014. A post-publication citation rate
was then calculated by dividing the total number of citations for each
article by the total number of months since the earliest date of
publication (e.g. epub ahead of print date) [27,28].
The purpose of using a citation rate rather than absolute
post-publication citation counts was to eliminate the effect of varying
amounts of time since publication, since studies published earlier have
had more time to accumulate citations.
Statistical analysis
MedianAMSTAR and PRISMA results were reported, along with the interobserver
agreement as calculated using the kappa coefficient (κ) for all SR &
MA except the first ten, which were reviewed in consensus. Spearman
correlation coefficients (ρ) were used to assess for correlation between
AMSTAR result and citation rate, PRISMA result and citation rate,
journal IF and citation rate, and journal 5-year IF and citation rate. A
multivariate analysis was performed: Spearman partial correlations were
performed to assess the associations between AMSTAR or PRISMA results
and post-publication citation rate while controlling for the effect of
journal IF and journal 5-year IF. Scatter plots were created to
demonstrate the distribution of citation rates relative to AMSTAR and
PRISMA results with polynomial lines fitted to data using LOESS (local
polynomial regression fitting) [29].
All statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS
Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA). Values are reported as medians with
interquartile range (IQR).
Results
129 studies from 11 journals were identified that met our inclusion criteria [30–158] (S2 Table). A meta-regression analysis [159] included by Tunis et al. [25]was excluded from our study since it was not a systematic review. The
median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was
23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The overall inter-observer agreement was moderate
for the PRISMA results with κ = 0.57, and higher for the AMSTAR results
with κ = 0.69. The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73
citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). Scatter plots show
the distribution of citation rates relative to AMSTAR result (Fig. 1) and PRISMA result (Fig. 2).
Fig 1. Scatter plot demonstrating the distribution of citations rates for each AMSTAR result.
Solid line: polynomials fitted to all data using LOESS [29]. Dashed line: polynomials linking subsets of data. Double dot-and-dash line: straight lines fitted to subsets of data.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.g001
Fig 2. Scatter plot demonstrating the distribution of citations rates for each PRISMA result.
Solid line: polynomials fitted to all data using LOESS [29]. Dashed line: polynomials linking subsets of data. Double dot-and-dash line: straight lines fitted to subsets of data.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.g002
After
multivariate analysis, a positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and
PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ = 0.243 (P = 0.006) and ρ = 0.256 (P = 0.004) respectively. Similarly, a positive correlation persisted after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ = 0.235 (P = 0.008) and ρ = 0.243 (P = 0.006) respectively.
Discussion
Ourresults suggest that the quality and completeness of SR & MA
reported in high impact radiology journals is associated with
post-publication citation rates. This association persisted on
multivariate analysis. Although nearly the same study population was
used as in a study by Tunis et al. [25], the purpose of our study was entirely different. Thus we felt an independent publication was warranted.
Radiology
journals with an IF >2.75 may be more likely to publish SR & MA.
Even though we limited our assessment to journals with a high IF, our
use of multivariate analysis to partial out the effect of journal IF and
5-year IF should help correct for the fact that these journals are more
frequently cited. Despite including only “high impact” journals, at the
time of our analysis, none of the journals required submission of a
PRISMA checklist along with a submitted manuscript. Radiology
was the only journal that had endorsed the PRISMA statement. It is our
hope that our findings encourage editors to endorse and authors to
adhere to the PRISMA checklist in the future.
Comparison to other studies
Priorstudies have investigated factors associated with post-publication
citation counts. Several factors shown to correlate with more citations
include: study design and study topic in the urology literature [5];
high levels of evidence, large sample size, multi-institutional studies
and conflict of interest disclosure in the orthopedic surgery
literature [6]; extended description of statistical analysis [7]; statistically significant papers in the psychiatry literature [8]; being indexed in numerous databases, number of authors, clinical relevance scores and number of cited references [9]; and article length in the general medicine literature [160].
We are unaware of any prior work assessing the effect of SR & MA
study quality and completeness on post-publication citation rates.
A study by Royle et al. investigated factors associated with higher citation counts of SR [16].
They found that the number of authors, first author from the United
States, an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms, type of intervention
classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening, and having an
international collaboration all correlated with increased citation
counts. Similar to our study, they found that journal IF was a stronger
predictor of citations.
A
prior investigation of studies that were originally submitted to an
emergency medicine specialty meeting found study design and quality did
not correlate with post-publication citation rates [161].
Unlike in our study, they did not exclusively evaluate SR & MA, did
not apply the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists, and did not specifically
look at the diagnostic imaging literature. Similar to our study and the
study by Royle et al., they found that journal IF was more important
than any other variable for post-publication counts.
It
is interesting to note that our results confirm previous
findings—namely that higher quality studies are cited more frequently.
It is also interesting to note that the median number of citations/month
was 0.73 (8.7 citations/year); this is considerably higher than the
number of citations typically seen in our included cohort of radiology
journals whose 2011 impact factors range from 2.75–6.07 [162]. This supports prior findings that studies of higher levels of evidence are cited more often [5,6,163].
Limitations
Thereare several limitations to this study. Cross-referencing Google Scholar
citation counts with other known citation databases such as Scopus [164] or the Thomson Reuters Web of Science [165] may have been beneficial since absolute citation counts have been shown to vary between databases [166].
However we were comparing relative citation counts between articles,
and several studies have shown a strong correlation between Google
Scholar citations counts and the Thomson Reuters Web of Science citation
counts [167–169]. Furthermore, Google Scholar is arguably more comprehensive than other citation databases in certain fields [170,171].
Another limitation was that our calculation of citation rate, by
dividing the total number of citations by time since publication,
assumes that the citation frequency is independent of the time since
publication. Given the difficulty in predicting the time course of
citations, which can vary considerably over time between articles and
depend on multiple factors including the article topic and the journal
of publication, this could introduce a source of bias in our analysis [172–174].
However we felt that our calculated citation rate based on the number
of citations over a three to seven year period following publication was
adequate and that any bias is likely to apply evenly over all studies,
thus minimizing the impact on our study conclusions. Furthermore, the
interface of Google Scholar and other citation indexes do not allow for
practical extraction of monthly citation information.
Several additional limitations outlined and addressed by Tunis et al. [25]
are applicable to our study: the assessment of journals was not blinded
to the journal or time of publication, our search was limited to
radiology journals with high IF and thus does not represent the totality
of the radiology literature, the selection of impact factor threshold
was somewhat arbitrary (and was chosen as a practical means to result in
a reasonable number of articles to review), and finally our
interobserver agreement was only moderate. We believe that our moderate
interobserver agreement was due to many items being flagged as unclear
by one reviewer to be discussed with the other.
Conclusion
Inconclusion, there is positive correlation between the quality and the
completeness of SR & MA published in high impact radiology journals
with citation rate, which persists when adjusted for journal IF and
journal 5-year IF. Although citation counts took on a wide range of
values for a particular AMSTAR and PRISMA score, this study provides
statistical evidence against there being “no relationship” with study
quality and completeness and post-publication citations. This reinforces
the importance of complete reporting and following publishing
guidelines for authors of SR and MA, and might encourage more journals
to endorse these guidelines.
Supporting Information
S2 Table. List of included articles with total PRISMA and AMSTAR results.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.s003
(DOC)
Author Contributions
Conceivedand designed the experiments: MM CvdP WP AT RH. Performed the
experiments: CvdP WP AT RH. Analyzed the data: MM CvdP WP. Contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools: CvdP AT RH. Wrote the paper: MM CvdP
WP AT RH.
References
- 1.
Garfield
E (1955) Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation
through association of ideas. Science 122: 108–111. pmid:14385826
doi:
10.1126/science.![]()
122.3159.108 - 2.
Casadevall
A, Fang FC (2014) Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania.
mBio 5: e00064–00014. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00064-14. pmid:24643863 - 3.
Zupanc
GK (2014) Impact beyond the impact factor. Journal of Comparative
Physiology A-Sensory Neural & Behavioral Physiology 200: 113–116.
doi:
10.1007/s00359-013-0863-1 - 4.
Garfield E (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. Cmaj 161: 979–980. pmid:10551195 - 5.
Willis
DL, Bahler CD, Neuberger MM, Dahm P (2011) Predictors of citations in
the urological literature. [Review]. BJU International 107: 1876–1880.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10028.x. pmid:21332629 - 6.
Okike
K, Kocher MS, Torpey JL, Nwachukwu BU, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M (2011)
Level of evidence and conflict of interest disclosure associated with
higher citation rates in orthopedics. [Review]. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology 64: 331–338. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.019.
pmid:20947295 - 7.
Nieminen
P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M (2006) The relationship between
quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Medical Research
Methodology 6.
doi:
10.1186/1471-2288-6-42 - 8.
Nieminen
P, Rucker G, Miettunen J, Carpenter J, Schumacher M (2007)
Statistically significant papers in psychiatry were cited more often
than others. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60: 939–946. pmid:17689810
doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.014 - 9.
Lokker
C, McKibbon KA, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB (2008) Prediction
of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data
available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study.
BMJ 336: 655–657. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39482.526713.BE. pmid:18292132 - 10.
Kressel
HY (2014) Beyond the impact factor: enhancing the impact of imaging
research published in Radiology. Radiology 270: 3–6. doi:
10.1148/radiol.13132314. pmid:24354368 - 11.
Sardanelli
F, Sconfienza LM (2013) Declining impact factor of radiologic journals:
a matter for debate. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 201:
W391–393. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10256. pmid:23971469 - 12.
Sundaram
M, Hodler J, Rosenthal DI (2012) On the relevance of the Impact Factor
and other factors. Skeletal Radiology 41: 125–126. doi:
10.1007/s00256-011-1342-9. pmid:22170183 - 13.
Aydingoz
U (2010) Ways to improve a journal's impact factor in the online
publication era. Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology 16: 255–256.
doi:
10.4261/1305-3825.dir.4080-10.0 - 14.
Shanta
A, Pradhan AS, Sharma SD (2013) Impact factor of a scientific journal:
Is it a measure of quality of research? Journal of Medical Physics 38:
155–157. doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.121191. pmid:24672148 - 15.
Dimitrov
JD, Kaveri SV, Bayry J (2010) Metrics: journal's impact factor skewed
by a single paper. Nature 466: 179. doi: 10.1038/466179c.
pmid:20613820 - 16.
Royle
P, Kandala NB, Barnard K, Waugh N (2013) Bibliometrics of systematic
reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Syst Rev
2: 74. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-74. pmid:24028376 - 17.
Falagas
ME, Kouranos VD, Michalopoulos A, Rodopoulou SP, Batsiou MA,
Karageorgopoulos DE (2010) Comparison of the distribution of citations
received by articles published in high, moderate, and low impact factor
journals in clinical medicine. Internal Medicine Journal 40: 587–591.
doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02247.x. pmid:20718883 - 18.
Halligan
S, Altman DG (2007) Evidence-based Practice in Radiology: Steps 3 and
4—Appraise and Apply Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Radiology
243: 13–27. pmid:17392245
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2431051823 - 19.
Ebell
MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman JL, Ewigman B, et al. (2004)
Simplifying the language of evidence to improve patient care: Strength
of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to
grading evidence in medical literature. [Review] [26 refs]. Journal of
Family Practice 53: 111–120. pmid:14764293
doi:
10.3122/jabfm.17.1.59 - 20.
Guyatt
GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ (1995) Users'
guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care
recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.[Erratum appears
in JAMA 1996 Apr 24;275(16):1232]. JAMA 274: 1800–1804. pmid:7500513
doi:
10.1001/jama.274.22.1800 - 21.
Kung
J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, Avezova R, Kossan G, Chew L, et al. (2010)
From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based
Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic
Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance. The open dentistry
journal: 84–91. doi: 10.2174/1874210601004020084. pmid:21088686 - 22.
Shea
BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. (2007)
Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological
quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7: 10. pmid:17302989
doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009 - 23.
Vandenbroucke
JP (2009) STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND,
ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK… and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline
toll? J Clin Epidemiol 62: 594–596. doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.003. pmid:19181482 - 24.
Moher
D, Altman DG, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J (2011) PRISMA statement.
Epidemiology 22: 128; author reply 128. doi:
10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181fe7825. pmid:21150360 - 25.
Tunis
AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K (2013) Association of study quality
with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and
quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology
journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology
269: 413–426. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130273. pmid:23824992 - 26.
Kodumuri
P, Ollivere B, Holley J, Moran CG (2014) The impact factor of a journal
is a poor measure of the clinical relevance of its papers. Bone &
Joint Journal 96-B: 414–419.
doi:
10.1302/0301-620x.96b3.32279 - 27.
Filion
KB, Pless IB (2008) Factors related to the frequency of citation of
epidemiologic publications. Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations
5.
doi:
10.1186/1742-5573-5-3 - 28.
Kulkarni
AV, Busse JW, Shams I (2007) Characteristics associated with citation
rate of the medical literature. PLoS ONE 2: e403. pmid:17476325
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0000403 - 29.
Jacoby
W (2000) Loess: a nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting
relationships between variables. Electoral Studies 19: 577–613.
doi:
10.1016/s0261-3794(99)00028-1 - 30.
Kwee
TC, Kwee RM (2007) MR angiography in the follow-up of intracranial
aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: systematic review and
meta-analysis. Neuroradiology 49: 703–713. pmid:17646977
doi:
10.1007/s00234-007-0266-5 - 31.
Heijmink
SWTPJ, Barentsz JO (2007) Contrast-enhanced versus systematic
transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate cancer detection: an overview of
techniques and a systematic review. European Journal of Radiology 63:
310–316. pmid:17719734
doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.027 - 32.
Vanhoenacker
PK, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Van Heste R, Decramer I, Van Hoe LR, Wijns W, et
al. (2007) Diagnostic performance of multidetector CT angiography for
assessment of coronary artery disease: meta-analysis. Radiology 244:
419–428. pmid:17641365
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2442061218 - 33.
Autti
T, Joensuu R, Aberg L (2007) Decreased T2 signal in the thalami may be a
sign of lysosomal storage disease. Neuroradiology 49: 571–578.
pmid:17334752
doi:
10.1007/s00234-007-0220-6 - 34.
Liu
J, Xu Y, Wang J (2007) Ultrasonography, computed tomography and
magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. European
Journal of Radiology 62: 328–334. pmid:17433597
doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.040 - 35.
Joshi
U, Raijmakers PGHM, Riphagen II, Teule GJJ, van Lingen A, Hoekstra OS
(2007) Attenuation-corrected vs. nonattenuation-corrected
2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positronemission tomography in
oncology: a systematic review. Molecular Imaging & Biology 9:
99–105.
doi:
10.1007/s11307-007-0076-5 - 36.
Semelka
RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr., Huda W (2007) Imaging strategies to reduce
the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution
with MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 25: 900–909.
pmid:17457809
doi:
10.1002/jmri.20895 - 37.
van
Eerde AM, Meutgeert MH, de Jong TPVM, Giltay JC (2007) Vesico-ureteral
reflux in children with prenatally detected hydronephrosis: a systematic
review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 29: 463–469.
doi:
10.1002/uog.3975 - 38.
Williams
GJ, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Karplus TE, Yung W, Hodson EM, et al. (2007)
Comparative accuracy of renal duplex sonographic parameters in the
diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: paired and unpaired analysis. AJR
American Journal of Roentgenology 188: 798–811. pmid:17312071
doi:
10.2214/ajr.06.0355 - 39.
Sampson
FC, Goodacre SW, Thomas SM, van Beek EJR (2007) The accuracy of MRI in
diagnosis of suspected deep vein thrombosis: systematic review and
meta-analysis. European Radiology 17: 175–181. pmid:16628439
doi:
10.1007/s00330-006-0178-5 - 40.
Medina
LS, Bernal B, Ruiz J (2007) Role of functional MR in determining
language dominance in epilepsy and nonepilepsy populations: a Bayesian
analysis. Radiology 242: 94–100. pmid:17185662
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2421050677 - 41.
Pakos
EE, Trikalinos TA, Fotopoulos AD, Ioannidis JPA (2007) Prosthesis
infection: diagnosis after total joint arthroplasty with antigranulocyte
scintigraphy with 99mTc-labeled monoclonal antibodies—a meta-analysis.
Radiology 242: 101–108. pmid:17090716
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2421052011 - 42.
Wijers
SC, Boelens JJ, Raphael MF, Beek FJ, de Jong PA (2011) Does
high-resolution CT has diagnostic value in patients presenting with
respiratory symptoms after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?
European Journal of Radiology 80: e536–543. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.037. pmid:21292416 - 43.
Dong
M-j, Zhao K, Liu Z-f, Wang G-l, Yang S-y, Zhou GJ (2011) A
meta-analysis of the value of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/PET-CT in the
evaluation of fever of unknown origin. European Journal of Radiology 80:
834–844. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.018. pmid:21131151 - 44.
de
Vasconcelos Sobreira Guedes B, da Rocha AJ, Gama HPP, da Silva CJ
(2011) Dural metastases from prostate carcinoma: a systematic review of
the literature apropos of six patients. European Journal of Radiology
80: 236–240. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.06.007. pmid:20619564 - 45.
Qu
X, Huang X, Wu L, Huang G, Ping X, Yan W (2011) Comparison of virtual
cystoscopy and ultrasonography for bladder cancer detection: a
meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 80: 188–197. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.04.003. pmid:20452159 - 46.
Wu
L, Cao Y, Liao C, Huang J, Gao F (2011) Diagnostic performance of
USPIO-enhanced MRI for lymph-node metastases in different body regions: a
meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 80: 582–589. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.11.027. pmid:20047813 - 47.
Yang
H-L, Liu T, Wang X-M, Xu Y, Deng S-M (2011) Diagnosis of bone
metastases: A meta-analysis comparing 18FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone
scintigraphy. European Radiology 21: 2604–2617. doi:
10.1007/s00330-011-2221-4. pmid:21887484 - 48.
Bertot
LC, Sato M, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Koike K (2011) Mortality and
complication rates of percutaneous ablative techniques for the treatment
of liver tumors: a systematic review. European Radiology 21: 2584–2596.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2222-3. pmid:21858539 - 49.
Robertson
C, Ragupathy SKA, Boachie C, Fraser C, Heys SD, Maclennan G, et al.
(2011) Surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour
recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer: a systematic
review. European Radiology 21: 2484–2491. doi:
10.1007/s00330-011-2226-z. pmid:21833567 - 50.
McInnes
MDF, Kielar AZ, Macdonald DB (2011) Percutaneous image-guided biopsy of
the spleen: systematic review and meta-analysis of the complication
rate and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 260: 699–708. doi:
10.1148/radiol.11110333. pmid:21693659 - 51.
Heinrich
A, Szostek A, Nees F, Meyer P, Semmler W, Flor H (2011) Effects of
static magnetic fields on cognition, vital signs, and sensory
perception: a meta-analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 34:
758–763. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22720. pmid:21751291 - 52.
Jeve
Y, Rana R, Bhide A, Thangaratinam S (2011) Accuracy of first-trimester
ultrasound in the diagnosis of early embryonic demise: a systematic
review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 38: 489–496.
doi:
10.1002/uog.10108 - 53.
Chan
YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ
(2011) Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine
anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics &
Gynecology 38: 371–382.
doi:
10.1002/uog.10056 - 54.
Bodily
KD, Cloft HJ, Lanzino G, Fiorella DJ, White PM, Kallmes DF (2011)
Stent-assisted coiling in acutely ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a
qualitative, systematic review of the literature. Ajnr: American Journal
of Neuroradiology 32: 1232–1236. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2478.
pmid:21546464 - 55.
Dym
RJ, Burns J, Freeman K, Lipton ML (2011) Is functional MR imaging
assessment of hemispheric language dominance as good as the Wada test?: a
meta-analysis. Radiology 261: 446–455. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101344.
pmid:21803921 - 56.
Salvesen
KA (2011) Ultrasound in pregnancy and non-right handedness:
meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ultrasound in Obstetrics &
Gynecology 38: 267–271.
doi:
10.1002/uog.9055 - 57.
de
Haan MC, van Gelder RE, Graser A, Bipat S, Stoker J (2011) Diagnostic
value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic
screening population: a meta-analysis. European Radiology 21: 1747–1763.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2104-8. pmid:21455818 - 58.
Dorrius
MD, der Weide MCJ-v, van Ooijen PMA, Pijnappel RM, Oudkerk M (2011)
Computer-aided detection in breast MRI: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. European Radiology 21: 1600–1608. doi:
10.1007/s00330-011-2091-9. pmid:21404134 - 59.
Lim
AC, Hegeman MA, Huis In 'T Veld MA, Opmeer BC, Bruinse HW, Mol BW
(2011) Cervical length measurement for the prediction of preterm birth
in multiple pregnancies: a systematic review and bivariate
meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 38: 10–17.
doi:
10.1002/uog.9013 - 60.
Brennan
ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, Marinovich ML, French JR, Macaskill P, et al.
(2011) Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of
underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology 260:
119–128. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11102368. pmid:21493791 - 61.
Wu
L-M, Gu H-Y, Zheng J, Xu X, Lin L-H, Deng X, et al. (2011) Diagnostic
value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for bone metastases: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance
Imaging 34: 128–135. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22608. pmid:21618333 - 62.
Kunadian
V, Zaman A, Spyridopoulos I, Qiu W (2011) Sodium bicarbonate for the
prevention of contrast induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of published
clinical trials. European Journal of Radiology 79: 48–55. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.12.015. pmid:20074886 - 63.
Pinto
A, Acampora C, Pinto F, Kourdioukova E, Romano L, Verstraete K (2011)
Learning from diagnostic errors: a good way to improve education in
radiology. European Journal of Radiology 78: 372–376. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.028. pmid:21255952 - 64.
Krishan
S, Panditaratne N, Verma R, Robertson R (2011) Incremental value of CT
venography combined with pulmonary CT angiography for the detection of
thromboembolic disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR
American Journal of Roentgenology 196: 1065–1072. doi:
10.2214/AJR.10.4745. pmid:21512072 - 65.
Pickhardt
PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R (2011) Colorectal cancer: CT
colonography and colonoscopy for detection—systematic review and
meta-analysis. Radiology 259: 393–405. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101887.
pmid:21415247 - 66.
Tang
S, Huang G, Liu J, Liu T, Treven L, Song S, et al. (2011) Usefulness of
18F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and EUS in diagnosing primary
pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 78:
142–150. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.026. pmid:19854016 - 67.
Boland
GWL, Dwamena BA, Jagtiani Sangwaiya M, Goehler AG, Blake MA, Hahn PF,
et al. (2011) Characterization of adrenal masses by using FDG PET: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance.
Radiology 259: 117–126. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11100569. pmid:21330566 - 68.
Smith
TO, Hilton G, Toms AP, Donell ST, Hing CB (2011) The diagnostic
accuracy of acetabular labral tears using magnetic resonance imaging and
magnetic resonance arthrography: a meta-analysis. European Radiology
21: 863–874. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1956-7. pmid:20859632 - 69.
Hudelist
G, English J, Thomas AE, Tinelli A, Singer CF, Keckstein J (2011)
Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for non-invasive
diagnosis of bowel endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 37: 257–263.
doi:
10.1002/uog.8858 - 70.
Torp-Pedersen
S, Bartels EM, Wilhjelm J, Bliddal H (2011) Articular cartilage
thickness measured with US is not as easy as it appears: a systematic
review of measurement techniques and image interpretation. Ultraschall
in der Medizin 32: 54–61. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245386. pmid:20645223 - 71.
Morris
RK, Malin G, Robson SC, Kleijnen J, Zamora J, Khan KS (2011) Fetal
umbilical artery Doppler to predict compromise of fetal/neonatal
wellbeing in a high-risk population: systematic review and bivariate
meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 37: 135–142.
doi:
10.1002/uog.7767 - 72.
Westerlaan
HE, van Dijk JMC, Jansen-van der Weide MC, de Groot JC, Groen RJM,
Mooij JJ, et al. (2011) Intracranial aneurysms in patients with
subarachnoid hemorrhage: CT angiography as a primary examination tool
for diagnosis—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 258:
134–145. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10092373. pmid:20935079 - 73.
Bohte
AE, van Werven JR, Bipat S, Stoker J (2011) The diagnostic accuracy of
US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared
with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis. European Radiology 21: 87–97. doi:
10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5. pmid:20680289 - 74.
Greenberg
ED, Gold R, Reichman M, John M, Ivanidze J, Edwards AM, et al. (2010)
Diagnostic accuracy of CT angiography and CT perfusion for cerebral
vasospasm: a meta-analysis. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 31:
1853–1860. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2246. pmid:20884748 - 75.
Niekel
MC, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver
metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a
meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not
previously undergone treatment. Radiology 257: 674–684. doi:
10.1148/radiol.10100729. pmid:20829538 - 76.
Alomari
AI, Orbach DB, Mulliken JB, Bisdorff A, Fishman SJ, Norbash A, et al.
(2010) Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome and spinal arteriovenous
malformations: an erroneous association. Ajnr: American Journal of
Neuroradiology 31: 1608–1612. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2167. pmid:20651014 - 77.
Krille
L, Hammer GP, Merzenich H, Zeeb H (2010) Systematic review on
physician's knowledge about radiation doses and radiation risks of
computed tomography. European Journal of Radiology 76: 36–41. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.08.025. pmid:20837382 - 78.
de
Zwart IM, de Roos A (2010) MRI for the evaluation of gastric
physiology. European Radiology 20: 2609–2616. doi:
10.1007/s00330-010-1850-3. pmid:20585784 - 79.
Jansen-van
der Weide MC, Greuter MJW, Jansen L, Oosterwijk JC, Pijnappel RM, de
Bock GH (2010) Exposure to low-dose radiation and the risk of breast
cancer among women with a familial or genetic predisposition: a
meta-analysis. European Radiology 20: 2547–2556. doi:
10.1007/s00330-010-1839-y. pmid:20582702 - 80.
Naggara
ON, White PM, Guilbert F, Roy D, Weill A, Raymond J (2010) Endovascular
treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: systematic review and
meta-analysis of the literature on safety and efficacy. Radiology 256:
887–897. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091982. pmid:20634431 - 81.
Li
Y, Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M (2010) A review of methods of clinical
image quality evaluation in mammography. European Journal of Radiology
74: e122–131. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.069. pmid:19482454 - 82.
Dave
M, Elmunzer BJ, Dwamena BA, Higgins PDR (2010) Primary sclerosing
cholangitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of MR
cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 256: 387–396. doi:
10.1148/radiol.10091953. pmid:20656832 - 83.
Thayyil
S, Chandrasekaran M, Chitty LS, Wade A, Skordis-Worrall J,
Bennett-Britton I, et al. (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of post-mortem
magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, children and adults: a systematic
review. European Journal of Radiology 75: e142–148. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.10.007. pmid:19910149 - 84.
Xia
D, Jing J, Shen H, Wu J (2010) Value of diffusion-weighted magnetic
resonance images for discrimination of focal benign and malignant
hepatic lesions: a meta-analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
32: 130–137. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22211. pmid:20578019 - 85.
Menke
J (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector CT in acute mesenteric
ischemia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 256: 93–101.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091938. pmid:20574087 - 86.
Hamon
M, Fau G, Nee G, Ehtisham J, Morello R, Hamon M (2010) Meta-analysis of
the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic
resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. Journal of
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 12: 29. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-12-29.
pmid:20482819 - 87.
Yuan
Y, Chen X-S, Liu S-Y, Shen K-W (2010) Accuracy of MRI in prediction of
pathologic complete remission in breast cancer after preoperative
therapy: a meta-analysis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 195:
260–268. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3908. pmid:20566826 - 88.
Mullassery
D, Ba'ath ME, Jesudason EC, Losty PD (2010) Value of liver herniation
in prediction of outcome in fetal congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics &
Gynecology 35: 609–614.
doi:
10.1002/uog.7586 - 89.
Oba
Y, Zaza T (2010) Abandoning daily routine chest radiography in the
intensive care unit: meta-analysis. Radiology 255: 386–395. doi:
10.1148/radiol.10090946. pmid:20413752 - 90.
Maarse
W, Berge SJ, Pistorius L, van Barneveld T, Kon M, Breugem C, et al.
(2010) Diagnostic accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound in detecting
prenatal cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Ultrasound in
Obstetrics & Gynecology 35: 495–502.
doi:
10.1002/uog.7472 - 91.
Zijta
FM, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Magnetic resonance (MR) colonography in
the detection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review of prospective
studies. European Radiology 20: 1031–1046. doi:
10.1007/s00330-009-1663-4. pmid:19936754 - 92.
Bouzeghrane
F, Naggara O, Kallmes DF, Berenstein A, Raymond J; International
Consortium of Neuroendovascular Centres (2010) In vivo experimental
intracranial aneurysm models: a systematic review. Ajnr: American
Journal of Neuroradiology 31: 418–423. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1853.
pmid:19875466 - 93.
Kwee
RM (2010) Prediction of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in
patients with esophageal cancer with use of 18F FDG PET: a systematic
review. Radiology 254: 707–717. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09091324.
pmid:20177086 - 94.
Chlapoutakis
K, Theocharopoulos N, Yarmenitis S, Damilakis J (2010) Performance of
computed tomographic urography in diagnosis of upper urinary tract
urothelial carcinoma, in patients presenting with hematuria: Systematic
review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 73: 334–338.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.10.026. pmid:19058939 - 95.
Sun
Z, Almutairi AMD (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of 64 multislice CT
angiography in the assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a
meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 73: 266–273. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.10.025. pmid:19056191 - 96.
Dani
KA, Muir KW (2010) Do iodinated contrast agents impair fibrinolysis in
acute stroke? A systematic review. Ajnr: American Journal of
Neuroradiology 31: 170–174. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1782. pmid:19749221 - 97.
Sotiriadis
A, Papatheodorou S, Kavvadias A, Makrydimas G (2010) Transvaginal
cervical length measurement for prediction of preterm birth in women
with threatened preterm labor: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics
& Gynecology 35: 54–64.
doi:
10.1002/uog.7457 - 98.
Floriani
I, Torri V, Rulli E, Garavaglia D, Compagnoni A, Salvolini L, et al.
(2010) Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver
metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31: 19–31. doi:
10.1002/jmri.22010. pmid:20027569 - 99.
Goergen
SK, Rumbold G, Compton G, Harris C (2010) Systematic review of current
guidelines, and their evidence base, on risk of lactic acidosis after
administration of contrast medium for patients receiving metformin.
Radiology 254: 261–269. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09090690. pmid:20032157 - 100.
Mazhar
SM, Shiehmorteza M, Kohl CA, Middleton MS, Sirlin CB (2009) Nephrogenic
systemic fibrosis in liver disease: a systematic review. Journal of
Magnetic Resonance Imaging 30: 1313–1322. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21983.
pmid:19937937 - 101.
Scholing
M, Saltzherr TP, Fung Kon Jin PHP, Ponsen KJ, Reitsma JB, Lameris JS,
et al. (2009) The value of postmortem computed tomography as an
alternative for autopsy in trauma victims: a systematic review. European
Radiology 19: 2333–2341. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1440-4.
pmid:19458952 - 102.
Provenzale
JM, Sarikaya B (2009) Comparison of test performance characteristics of
MRI, MR angiography, and CT angiography in the diagnosis of carotid and
vertebral artery dissection: a review of the medical literature. AJR
American Journal of Roentgenology 193: 1167–1174. doi:
10.2214/AJR.08.1688. pmid:19770343 - 103.
Springer
I, Dewey M (2009) Comparison of multislice computed tomography with
intravascular ultrasound for detection and characterization of coronary
artery plaques: a systematic review. European Journal of Radiology 71:
275–282. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.04.035. pmid:18586427 - 104.
Menke
J (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in
severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different
techniques. European Radiology 19: 2204–2216. doi:
10.1007/s00330-009-1403-9. pmid:19399505 - 105.
Goodman
CS, Hur JY, Adajar MA, Coulam CH (2009) How well does CT predict the
need for laparotomy in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating
abdominal injury? A review and meta-analysis. AJR American Journal of
Roentgenology 193: 432–437. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1927. pmid:19620440 - 106.
Gu
P, Pan L-L, Wu S-Q, Sun L, Huang G (2009) CA 125, PET alone, PET-CT, CT
and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 71: 164–174. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.02.019. pmid:18378417 - 107.
Kranz
PG, Eastwood JD (2009) Does diffusion-weighted imaging represent the
ischemic core? An evidence-based systematic review. Ajnr: American
Journal of Neuroradiology 30: 1206–1212. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1547.
pmid:19357385 - 108.
Warren
R, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Black R, Houssami N (2009) Technical aspects
of breast MRI—do they affect outcomes? European Radiology 19: 1629–1638.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1341-6. pmid:19247664 - 109.
de
Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN (2009) Accuracy of MRI, MR
arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a
meta-analysis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 192: 1701–1707.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1241. pmid:19457838 - 110.
Horsthuis
K, Bipat S, Stokkers PCF, Stoker J (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging
for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn's disease: a systematic
review. European Radiology 19: 1450–1460. doi:
10.1007/s00330-008-1287-0. pmid:19189109 - 111.
Torloni
MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M, Betran AP, Allen T, Gonzalez R, et al.
(2009) Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of
the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics &
Gynecology 33: 599–608.
doi:
10.1002/uog.6328 - 112.
Vinnicombe
S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva
IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison
within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of
published data. Radiology 251: 347–358. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2512081235.
pmid:19401569 - 113.
Miller
E, Uleryk E, Doria AS (2009) Evidence-based outcomes of studies
addressing diagnostic accuracy of MRI of juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 192: 1209–1218. doi:
10.2214/AJR.08.2304. pmid:19380543 - 114.
Niemann
T, Egelhof T, Bongartz G (2009) Transthoracic sonography for the
detection of pulmonary embolism—a meta-analysis. Ultraschall in der
Medizin 30: 150–156. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1027856. pmid:19253205 - 115.
Sun
Z, Davidson R, Lin CH (2009) Multi-detector row CT angiography in the
assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a systematic review.
European Journal of Radiology 69: 489–495. pmid:18162351
doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.030 - 116.
Vente
MAD, Wondergem M, van der Tweel I, van den Bosch MAAJ, Zonnenberg BA,
Lam MG, et al. (2009) Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolization for the
treatment of liver malignancies: a structured meta-analysis. European
Radiology 19: 951–959. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1211-7. pmid:18989675 - 117.
Yuan
Y, Gu ZX, Wei WS (2009) Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission
tomography, single-photon emission tomography, and structural MR imaging
for prediction of rapid conversion to Alzheimer disease in patients
with mild cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis. Ajnr: American Journal
of Neuroradiology 30: 404–410. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1357. pmid:19001534 - 118.
White
PM, Raymond J (2009) Endovascular coiling of cerebral aneurysms using
"bioactive" or coated-coil technologies: a systematic review of the
literature. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 30: 219–226. doi:
10.3174/ajnr.A1324. pmid:18842754 - 119.
Kwee
TC, Kwee RM (2009) Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown
primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. European Radiology
19: 731–744. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1194-4. pmid:18925401 - 120.
Kok
M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, Van Der Post JA, Mol BW (2009) Ultrasound
factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a
meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 33: 76–84.
doi:
10.1002/uog.6277 - 121.
Heinrich
MC, Haberle L, Muller V, Bautz W, Uder M (2009) Nephrotoxicity of
iso-osmolar iodixanol compared with nonionic low-osmolar contrast media:
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Radiology 250: 68–86.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2501080833. pmid:19092091 - 122.
Gaitini
DE, Brenner B (2008) Do we need a cancer screening in patients with
idiopathic deep vein thrombosis? Ultraschall in der Medizin 29 Suppl 5:
220–225. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1027994. pmid:19177286 - 123.
Meijer
AB, O YL, Geleijns J, Kroft LJM (2008) Meta-analysis of 40- and 64-MDCT
angiography for assessing coronary artery stenosis. AJR American
Journal of Roentgenology 191: 1667–1675. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.4022.
pmid:19020234 - 124.
Krug
B, Crott R, Lonneux M, Baurain J-F, Pirson A-S, Vander Borght T (2008)
Role of PET in the initial staging of cutaneous malignant melanoma:
systematic review. Radiology 249: 836–844. doi:
10.1148/radiol.2493080240. pmid:19011184 - 125.
Wiesmann
M, Schopf V, Jansen O, Bruckmann H (2008) Stent-protected angioplasty
versus carotid endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis:
meta-analysis of randomized trial data. European Radiology 18:
2956–2966. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1077-8. pmid:18654784 - 126.
Shah
QA, Zeeshan Memon M, Vazquez G, Suri MFK, Hussein HM, Mohammad YM, et
al. (2008) Clinical and radiological outcomes of acute ischemic stroke
patients without angiographic occlusion on digital subtraction
angiogram. A pooled analysis of case series. Neuroradiology 50: 963–968.
doi: 10.1007/s00234-008-0449-8. pmid:18766335 - 127.
Lameris
W, van Randen A, Bipat S, Bossuyt PMM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J (2008)
Graded compression ultrasonography and computed tomography in acute
colonic diverticulitis: meta-analysis of test accuracy. European
Radiology 18: 2498–2511. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1018-6. pmid:18523784 - 128.
Shapiro
M, Babb J, Becske T, Nelson PK (2008) Safety and efficacy of adjunctive
balloon remodeling during endovascular treatment of intracranial
aneurysms: a literature review. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology
29: 1777–1781. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1216. pmid:18719039 - 129.
van
Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA
(2008) Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT
and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology
249: 97–106. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2483071652. pmid:18682583 - 130.
Provenzale
JM, Shah K, Patel U, McCrory DC (2008) Systematic review of CT and MR
perfusion imaging for assessment of acute cerebrovascular disease. Ajnr:
American Journal of Neuroradiology 29: 1476–1482. doi:
10.3174/ajnr.A1161. pmid:18583410 - 131.
Cronin
P, Dwamena BA, Kelly AM, Bernstein SJ, Carlos RC (2008) Solitary
pulmonary nodules and masses: a meta-analysis of the diagnostic utility
of alternative imaging tests. European Radiology 18: 1840–1856. doi:
10.1007/s00330-008-0970-5. pmid:18607593 - 132.
Clarke
M (2008) Systematic review of reviews of risk factors for intracranial
aneurysms. Neuroradiology 50: 653–664. doi: 10.1007/s00234-008-0411-9.
pmid:18560819 - 133.
Niemann
T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G (2008) Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT
for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR American Journal
of Roentgenology 191: 396–401. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3414.
pmid:18647908 - 134.
Cahir
JG, Toms AP (2008) Regional migratory osteoporosis. European Journal of
Radiology 67: 2–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.01.051. pmid:18355999 - 135.
Sun
Z, Lin C, Davidson R, Dong C, Liao Y (2008) Diagnostic value of
64-slice CT angiography in coronary artery disease: a systematic review.
European Journal of Radiology 67: 78–84. pmid:17766073
doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.07.014 - 136.
Seror
P (2008) Sonography and electrodiagnosis in carpal tunnel syndrome
diagnosis, an analysis of the literature. European Journal of Radiology
67: 146–152. pmid:17669612
doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.017 - 137.
Hamon
M, Lepage O, Malagutti P, Riddell JW, Morello R, Agostini D, et al.
(2008) Diagnostic performance of 16- and 64-section spiral CT for
coronary artery bypass graft assessment: meta-analysis. Radiology 247:
679–686. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2473071132. pmid:18403629 - 138.
Crane
JMG, Hutchens D (2008) Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical
length to predict preterm birth in asymptomatic women at increased
risk: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 31:
579–587.
doi:
10.1002/uog.5323 - 139.
Horsthuis
K, Bipat S, Bennink RJ, Stoker J (2008) Inflammatory bowel disease
diagnosed with US, MR, scintigraphy, and CT: meta-analysis of
prospective studies. Radiology 247: 64–79. doi:
10.1148/radiol.2471070611. pmid:18372465 - 140.
Chao
AS, Chao A, Wang TH, Chang YC, Chang YL, Hsieh CC, et al. (2008)
Outcome of antenatally diagnosed cardiac rhabdomyoma: case series and a
meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 31: 289–295.
doi:
10.1002/uog.5264 - 141.
Achten
E, Deblaere K (2008) Health technology assessment on the use of
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in the
diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and clinically isolated syndromes
(CIS). European Journal of Radiology 65: 211–213. doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.014. pmid:18164571 - 142.
Cronin
P, Dwamena BA, Kelly AM, Carlos RC (2008) Solitary pulmonary nodules:
meta-analytic comparison of cross-sectional imaging modalities for
diagnosis of malignancy. Radiology 246: 772–782. doi:
10.1148/radiol.2463062148. pmid:18235105 - 143.
Janne
d'Othee B, Siebert U, Cury R, Jadvar H, Dunn EJ, Hoffmann U (2008) A
systematic review on diagnostic accuracy of CT-based detection of
significant coronary artery disease. European Journal of Radiology 65:
449–461. pmid:17590554
doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.05.003 - 144.
Hamon
M, Champ-Rigot L, Morello R, Riddell JW, Hamon M (2008) Diagnostic
accuracy of in-stent coronary restenosis detection with multislice
spiral computed tomography: a meta-analysis. European Radiology 18:
217–225. pmid:17763854
doi:
10.1007/s00330-007-0743-6 - 145.
Robinson
C, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Mallett S, Altman DG (2008) CT colonography: a
systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of
computer-aided detection. Radiology 246: 426–433. doi:
10.1148/radiol.2461070121. pmid:18227540 - 146.
Sosna
J, Sella T, Sy O, Lavin PT, Eliahou R, Fraifeld S, et al. (2008)
Critical analysis of the performance of double-contrast barium enema for
detecting colorectal polyps > or = 6 mm in the era of CT
colonography. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 190: 374–385. doi:
10.2214/AJR.07.2099. pmid:18212223 - 147.
Fakhran
S, Escott EJ (2008) Pineocytoma mimicking a pineal cyst on imaging:
true diagnostic dilemma or a case of incomplete imaging? Ajnr: American
Journal of Neuroradiology 29: 159–163. pmid:17925371
doi:
10.3174/ajnr.a0750 - 148.
Peters
NHGM, Borel Rinkes IHM, Zuithoff NPA, Mali WPTM, Moons KGM, Peeters PH
(2008) Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions.
Radiology 246: 116–124. pmid:18024435
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2461061298 - 149.
Hamon
M, Morello R, Riddell JW, Hamon M (2007) Coronary arteries: diagnostic
performance of 16- versus 64-section spiral CT compared with invasive
coronary angiography—meta-analysis. Radiology 245: 720–731.
pmid:17951354
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2453061899 - 150.
Pakos
EE, Koumoulis HD, Fotopoulos AD, Ioannidis JPA (2007) Osteomyelitis:
antigranulocyte scintigraphy with 99mTC radiolabeled monoclonal
antibodies for diagnosis—meta-analysis. Radiology 245: 732–741.
pmid:17898328
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2452061877 - 151.
Ba'ath
ME, Jesudason EC, Losty PD (2007) How useful is the lung-to-head ratio
in predicting outcome in the fetus with congenital diaphragmatic hernia?
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics &
Gynecology 30: 897–906.
doi:
10.1002/uog.5164 - 152.
de
Bondt RBJ, Nelemans PJ, Hofman PAM, Casselman JW, Kremer B, van
Engelshoven JM, et al. (2007) Detection of lymph node metastases in head
and neck cancer: a meta-analysis comparing US, USgFNAC, CT and MR
imaging. European Journal of Radiology 64: 266–272. pmid:17391885
doi:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.037 - 153.
Heijenbrok-Kal
MH, Kock MCJM, Hunink MGM (2007) Lower extremity arterial disease:
multidetector CT angiography meta-analysis. Radiology 245: 433–439.
pmid:17848679
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2451061280 - 154.
Visser
JJ, van Sambeek MRHM, Hamza TH, Hunink MGM, Bosch JL (2007) Ruptured
abdominal aortic aneurysms: endovascular repair versus open
surgery—systematic review. Radiology 245: 122–129. pmid:17885185
doi:
10.1148/radiol.2451061204 - 155.
Berghella
V, Keeler SM, To MS, Althuisius SM, Rust OA (2010) Effectiveness of
cerclage according to severity of cervical length shortening: a
meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 35: 468–473.
doi:
10.1002/uog.7547 - 156.
Hillman
SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, et
al. (2011) Additional information from array comparative genomic
hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal
diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in
Obstetrics & Gynecology 37: 6–14.
doi:
10.1002/uog.7754 - 157.
Morris
RK, Ruano R, Kilby MD (2011) Effectiveness of fetal cystoscopy as a
diagnostic and therapeutic intervention for lower urinary tract
obstruction: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics &
Gynecology 37: 629–637.
doi:
10.1002/uog.8981 - 158.
Roberts
D, Gates S, Kilby M, Neilson JP (2008) Interventions for twin-twin
transfusion syndrome: a Cochrane review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics &
Gynecology 31: 701–711.
doi:
10.1002/uog.5328 - 159.
Schlattmann
P, Schuetz GM, Dewey M (2011) Influence of coronary artery disease
prevalence on predictive values of coronary CT angiography: a
meta-regression analysis. European Radiology 21: 1904–1913. doi:
10.1007/s00330-011-2142-2. pmid:21597986 - 160.
Falagas
ME, Zarkali A, Karageorgopoulos DE, Bardakas V, Mavros MN (2013) The
impact of article length on the number of future citations: a
bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals. PLoS One 8: e49476.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049476. pmid:23405060 - 161.
Callaham
M, Wears RL, Weber E (2002) Journal prestige, publication bias, and
other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in
peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 287: 2847–2850. pmid:12038930
doi:
10.1001/jama.287.21.2847 - 162.
Journal Citation Reports: The recognized authority for evaluating journals. Thomson Reuters. 2014. Available: http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/. - 163.
Lee
KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA (2002) Association of journal
quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research
articles. Jama 287: 2805–2808. pmid:12038918
doi:
10.1001/jama.287.21.2805 - 164.
Elsevier (2014) Scopus. Database: www.scopus.com. Accessed 1 May 2014. - 165.
Web of Science Database. Thomson Reuters. 2014. Available: www.thomsonreuters.com/thomson-reuters-web-of-science/. - 166.
Kulkarni
AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW (2009) Comparisons of citations in Web of
Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general
medical journals. Jama 302: 1092–1096. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307.
pmid:19738094 - 167.
Pauly
D, Stergiou KI (2005) Equivalence of results from two citation
analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service.
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2005: 33–35. - 168.
Mikki S (2010) Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences. Scientometrics 82: 321–331. - 169.
Ebrahim
NA, Salehi H, Embi MA, Danaee M, Mohammadjafari M, Zavvari A, et al.
(2014) Equality of Google Scholar with Web of Science Citations: Case of
Malaysian Engineering Highly Cited Papers. Modern Applied Science 8:
63–69.
doi:
10.5539/mas.v8n5p63 - 170.
Harzing
A-W (2013) A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for
citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners.
Scientometrics 94: 1057–1075. - 171.
Meho
LI, Yang K (2007) Impact of data sources on citation counts and
rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google
scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 58: 2105–2125.
doi:
10.1002/asi.20677 - 172.
Nieder
C, Astner ST, Grosu AL (2012) Glioblastoma research 2006–2010: pattern
of citation and systematic review of highly cited articles. Clin Neurol
Neurosurg 114: 1207–1210. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2012.03.049.
pmid:22516416 - 173.
Stringer
MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA (2008) Effectiveness of journal
ranking schemes as a tool for locating information. PLoS One 3: e1683.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001683. pmid:18301760 - 174.
Stringer
MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA (2010) Statistical validation of a
global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations
accrued by papers published in a scientific journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci
Technol 61: 1377–1385. pmid:21858251
doi:
10.1002/asi.21335
PLOS ONE: Is Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation Rates?