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

BACKGROUND: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. STUDY TYPE: Meta-research. POPULATION: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included. ASSESSMENT: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts. DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Radiologic, Pathologic, Clinical, and Physiologic Findings of Electronic Cigarette or Vaping Product Use-associated Lung Injury (EVALI): Evolving Knowledge and Remaining Questions.

Proposed as a safer alternative to smoking, the use of electronic cigarettes has not proven to be innocuous. With numerous deaths, there is an increasing degree of public interest in understanding the symptoms, imaging appearances, causes of, and treatment of electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). Patients with EVALI typically have a nonspecific clinical presentation characterized by a combination of respiratory, gastrointestinal, and constitutional symptoms. EVALI is a diagnosis of exclusion; the patient must elicit a history of recent vaping within 90 days, other etiologies must be eliminated, and chest imaging findings must be abnormal. Chest CT findings in EVALI most commonly show a pattern of acute lung injury on the spectrum of organizing pneumonia and diffuse alveolar damage. The pathologic pattern found depends on when in the evolution of the disease process the biopsy sample is taken. Other less common forms of lung injury, including acute eosinophilic pneumonia and diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, have also been reported. Radiologists and pathologists help play an important role in the evaluation of patients suspected of having EVALI. Accurate and rapid identification may decrease morbidity and mortality by allowing for aggressive clinical management and glucocorticoid administration, which have been shown to decrease the severity of lung injury in some patients. In this review, the authors summarize the current state of the art for the imaging and pathologic findings of this disorder and outline a few of the major questions that remain to be answered.

Pulmonary COVID-19: Multimodality Imaging Examples.

The full digital presentation is available online.

Variable radiological lung nodule evaluation leads to divergent management recommendations.

Radiological evaluation of incidentally detected lung nodules on computed tomography (CT) influences management. We assessed international radiological variation in 1) pulmonary nodule characterisation; 2) hypothetical guideline-derived management; and 3) radiologists' management recommendations.107 radiologists from 25 countries evaluated 69 CT-detected nodules, recording: 1) first-choice composition (solid, part-solid or ground-glass, with percentage confidence); 2) morphological features; 3) dimensions; 4) recommended management; and 5) decision-influencing factors. We modelled hypothetical management decisions on the 2005 and updated 2017 Fleischner Society, and both liberal and parsimonious interpretations of the British Thoracic Society 2015 guidelines.Overall agreement for first-choice nodule composition was good (Fleiss' κ=0.65), but poorest for part-solid nodules (weighted κ 0.62, interquartile range 0.50-0.71). Morphological variables, including spiculation (κ=0.35), showed poor-to-moderate agreement (κ=0.23-0.53). Variation in diameter was greatest at key thresholds (5 mm and 6 mm). Agreement for radiologists' recommendations was poor (κ=0.30); 21% disagreed with the majority. Although agreement within the four guideline-modelled management strategies was good (κ=0.63-0.73), 5-10% of radiologists would disagree with majority decisions if they applied guidelines strictly.Agreement was lowest for part-solid nodules, while significant measurement variation exists at important size thresholds. These variations resulted in generally good agreement for guideline-modelled management, but poor agreement for radiologists' actual recommendations.