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.

Impact of PI-RADS Category 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 3 lesions' impact on the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of MRI for prostate cancer (PC) and to derive the prevalence of PC within each PI-RADS category. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 10, 2020 for studies reporting on the DTA of MRI by PI-RADS category. Accuracy metrics were calculated using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis with PI-RADS three lesions treated as a positive test, negative test, and excluded from the analysis. Differences in DTA were assessed utilizing meta-regression. PC prevalence within each PI-RADS category was estimated with a proportional meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 26 studies reporting on 12,913 patients (4,853 with PC) were included. Sensitivities for PC in the positive, negative, and excluded test groups were 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92-98), 82% (CI 75-87), and 95% (CI 91-97), respectively. Specificities for the positive, negative, and excluded test groups were 33% (CI 23-44), 71% (CI 62-79), and 52% (CI 37-66), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated higher sensitivity (p < 0.001) and lower specificity (p < 0.001) in the positive test group compared to the negative group. Clinically significant PC prevalences were 5.9% (CI 0-17.1), 11.4% (CI 6.5-17.3), 24.9% (CI 18.4-32.0), 55.7% (CI 47.8-63.5), and 81.4% (CI 75.9-86.4) for PI-RADS categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS category 3 lesions can significantly impact the DTA of MRI for PC detection. A low prevalence of clinically significant PC is noted in PI-RADS category 1 and 2 cases. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Inclusion or exclusion of PI-RADS category 3 lesions impacts the DTA of MRI for PC detection.

Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Forty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.