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.

Reporting Bias in Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: Are Studies With Positive Conclusions or Titles Submitted and Published Faster?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive conclusions or titles have a shorter time to publication than those with nonpositive (i.e., negative or neutral) conclusions or titles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included primary imaging DTA studies from systematic reviews published in 2015. The conclusion and title of each study were extracted, and their positivity was classified independently in duplicate. The time from study completion to publication was extracted and calculated. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate associations of conclusion and title positivity with time to publication, with adjustment made for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 774 imaging DTA studies were included; time from study completion to publication could be calculated for 516 studies. The median time from completion to publication was 18 months (interquartile range, 13-26 months) for the 413 studies with positive conclusions, 23 months (interquartile range, 16-33 months) for the 63 studies with neutral conclusions, and 25 months (interquartile range, 15-38 months) for the 40 studies with negative conclusions. A positive conclusion was associated with a shorter time from study completion to publication compared with a non-positive conclusion (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.68). Of all included studies, 39 (5%) had positive titles, 731 (94%) had neutral titles, and 4 (< 1%) had negative titles. Positive titles were not significantly associated with a shorter time to study publication (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.75-1.69). CONCLUSION: Positive conclusions (but not titles) were associated with a shorter time from study completion to publication. This finding may contribute to an overrepresentation of positive results in the imaging DTA literature.

Safety of Intrathecal Administration of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background The use of MR cisternography with intrathecal administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) is limited by a lack of understanding of the relationship between intrathecal GBCA exposure and dose-related adverse events. Purpose To perform a systematic review to establish an understanding of the dose-response relationship of intrathecal GBCAs and to characterize related adverse events, particularly at higher doses. Materials and Methods Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Central databases were searched for studies reporting intrathecal GBCA use. Data extraction included studies focused on rates and types of adverse events after intrathecal GBCA exposure. A two-tailed independent sample t test statistic was used to evaluate the relationship between GBCA dose and the presence of serious versus nonserious adverse events. Meta-analysis was used to determine the overall incidence of adverse events. Study quality and publication bias were assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and a funnel plot (effect size measured using Hedges' g followed by the Egger test), respectively. Results Fifty-three studies with a total of 1036 patients were included for analysis. The overall rate of adverse events after intrathecal administration of GBCA was 13% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3%, 18%). Meta-analysis revealed moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 62%). Serious adverse event rates could not be determined with meta-analysis. They were reported in 10 studies and were primarily neurologic in nature, with two cases of coma-one resulting in death. Serious adverse events were associated with significantly higher GBCA doses when compared with nonserious adverse events (mean difference, 4.5 mmol; 95% CI: 2.3 mmol, 6.6 mmol; P = .008). For serious adverse events, there was no clear dose-dependent increase in severity above 2.0 mmol. Conclusion Overall, intrathecal administration of GBCAs at doses greater than 1.0 mmol are associated with serious neurotoxic complications with relative clinical safety at lower doses. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kanal in this issue.