Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey.

OBJECTIVE: Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science. METHODS: We identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis. RESULTS: 198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study.

Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P < .0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P < .0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower.

How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide the best available evidence to inform decisions regarding the use of a diagnostic test. In this guide, the authors provide a practical approach for clinicians to appraise diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews and apply their results to patient care. The first step is to identify an appropriate systematic review with a research question matching the clinical scenario. The user should evaluate the rigor of the review methods to evaluate its credibility (Did the review use clearly defined eligibility criteria, a comprehensive search strategy, structured data collection, risk of bias and applicability appraisal, and appropriate meta-analysis methods?). If the review is credible, the next step is to decide whether the diagnostic performance is adequate for clinical use (Do sensitivity and specificity estimates exceed the threshold that makes them useful in clinical practice? Are these estimates sufficiently precise? Is variability in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy across studies explained?). Diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews that are judged to be credible and provide diagnostic accuracy estimates with sufficient certainty and relevance are the most useful to inform patient care. This review discusses comparative, noncomparative, and emerging approaches to systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy using a clinical scenario and examples based on recent publications.

Is There Evidence of P-Hacking in Imaging Research?

BACKGROUND: P-hacking, the tendency to run selective analyses until they become significant, is prevalent in many scientific disciplines. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess if p-hacking exists in imaging research. METHODS: Protocol, data, and code available here https://osf.io/xz9ku/?view_only=a9f7c2d841684cb7a3616f567db273fa. We searched imaging journals Ovid MEDLINE from 1972 to 2021. Text mining using Python script was used to collect metadata: journal, publication year, title, abstract, and P-values from abstracts. One P-value was randomly sampled per abstract. We assessed for evidence of p-hacking using a p-curve, by evaluating for a concentration of P-values just below .05. We conducted a one-tailed binomial test (α = .05 level of significance) to assess whether there were more P-values falling in the upper range (e.g., .045 < P < .05) than in the lower range (e.g., .04 < P < .045). To assess variation in results introduced by our random sampling of a single P-value per abstract, we repeated the random sampling process 1000 times and pooled results across the samples. Analysis was done (divided into 10-year periods) to determine if p-hacking practices evolved over time. RESULTS: Our search of 136 journals identified 967,981 abstracts. Text mining identified 293,687 P-values, and a total of 4105 randomly sampled P-values were included in the p-hacking analysis. The number of journals and abstracts that were included in the analysis as a fraction and percentage of the total number was, respectively, 108/136 (80%) and 4105/967,981 (.4%). P-values did not concentrate just under .05; in fact, there were more P-values falling in the lower range (e.g., .04 < P < .045) than falling just below .05 (e.g., .045 < P < .05), indicating lack of evidence for p-hacking. Time trend analysis did not identify p-hacking in any of the five 10-year periods. CONCLUSION: We did not identify evidence of p-hacking in abstracts published in over 100 imaging journals since 1972. These analyses cannot detect all forms of p-hacking, and other forms of bias may exist in imaging research such as publication bias and selective outcome reporting.

Hepatic Adenoma Subtypes on Hepatobiliary Phase of Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND. Accumulating evidence indicates that hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) may have a higher frequency of hepatobiliary phase (HBP) iso- or hyperintensity than previously reported. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proportion of HCA that shows iso- or hyperintensity in the HBP of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, stratified by HCA subtype (HNF1a-inactivated [H-HCA], inflammatory [I-HCA], ß-catenin-activated [B-HCA], and unclassified [U-HCA] HCA), and to assess the diagnostic performance of HBP iso- or hyperintensity for differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) from HCA. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through February 14, 2022, for articles reporting HBP signal intensity on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI among pathologically proven HCAs, stratified by subtype. The pooled proportion of HBP iso- or hyperintensity was determined for each subtype and compared using metaregression. Diagnostic performance of HBP iso- or hyperintensity for differentiating FNH from all HCA subtypes combined and from B-HCA and U-HCA combined was assessed using bivariate modeling. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Twenty-eight studies (12 original investigations, 16 case reports or case series) were included, yielding 364 patients with 410 HCAs (112 H-HCAs, 203 I-HCAs, 33 B-HCAs, 62 U-HCAs). Pooled proportion of HBP iso- or hyperintensity was 14% (95% CI, 4-26%) among all HCAs, 0% (95% CI, 0-2%) among H-HCAs, 11% (95% CI, 0-29%) among U-HCAs, 14% (95% CI, 2-31%) among I-HCAs, and 59% (95% CI, 26-88%) among B-HCAs; metaregression showed significant difference among subtypes (p < .001). In four studies reporting diagnostic performance information, HBP iso- or hyperintensity had sensitivity of 99% (95% CI, 57-100%) and specificity of 89% (95% CI, 82-94%) for differentiating FNH from all HCA subtypes and sensitivity of 99% (95% CI, 53-100%) and specificity of 65% (95% CI, 44-80%) for differentiating FNH from B-HCA or U-HCA. CONCLUSION. HCA subtypes other than H-HCA show proportions of HBP iso- or hyperintensity ranging from 11% (U-HCA) to 59% (B-HCA). Low prevalence of B-HCA has contributed to prior reports of high diagnostic performance of HBP iso- or hyperintensity for differentiating FNH from HCA. CLINICAL IMPACT. Radiologists should recognize the low specificity of HBP iso- or hyperintensity on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for differentiating FNH from certain HCA subtypes.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy. SEARCH METHODS: 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 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging modalities for the detection of COVID-19.

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to present diagnostic challenges. The use of thoracic radiography has been studied as a method to improve the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19. The 'Living' Cochrane Systematic Review on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging tests for COVID-19 is continuously updated as new information becomes available for study. In the most recent version, published in March 2021, a meta-analysis was done to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity of chest X-ray (CXR) and lung ultrasound (LUS) for the diagnosis of COVID-19. CXR gave a sensitivity of 80.6% (95%CI: 69.1-88.6) and a specificity of 71.5% (95%CI: 59.8-80.8). LUS gave a sensitivity rate of 86.4% (95%CI: 72.7-93.9) and specificity of 54.6% (95%CI: 35.3-72.6). These results differed from the findings reported in the recent article in this journal where they cited the previous versions of the study in which a meta-analysis for CXR and LUS could not be performed. Additionally, the article states that COVID-19 could not be distinguished, using chest computed tomography (CT), from other respiratory diseases. However, the latest review version identifies chest CT as having a specificity of 80.0% (95%CI: 74.9-84.3), which is much higher than the previous version which indicated a specificity of 61.1% (95%CI: 42.3-77.1). Therefore, CXR, chest CT and LUS have the potential to be used in conjunction with other methods in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

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.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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). MAIN RESULTS: 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. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.