Dataset Information

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method.

ABSTRACT: Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

SUBMITTER: Bolboaca SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6563977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists' opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist's report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication.MethodsA 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation.ResultsA total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1-3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists' service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists' service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist.ConclusionStructured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.

Project description:BackgroundYttrium-90 (90Y) positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography (PET/CT) represents a technological leap from 90Y bremsstrahlung single-photon emission computed tomography with integrated computed tomography (SPECT/CT) by coincidence imaging of low abundance internal pair production. Encouraged by favorable early experiences, we implemented post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT as an adjunct to 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in diagnostic reporting.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of all paired 90Y PET/CT and 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT scans over a 1-year period. We compared image resolution, ability to confirm technical success, detection of non-target activity, and providing conclusive information about 90Y activity within targeted tumor vascular thrombosis. 90Y resin microspheres were used. 90Y PET/CT was performed on a conventional time-of-flight lutetium-yttrium-oxyorthosilicate scanner with minor modifications to acquisition and reconstruction parameters. Specific findings on 90Y PET/CT were corroborated by 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT, 99mTc macroaggregated albumin SPECT/CT, follow-up diagnostic imaging or review of clinical records.ResultsDiagnostic reporting recommendations were developed from our collective experience across 44 paired scans. Emphasis on the continuity of care improved overall diagnostic accuracy and reporting confidence of the operator. With proper technique, the presence of background noise did not pose a problem for diagnostic reporting. A counter-intuitive but effective technique of detecting non-target activity is proposed, based on the pattern of activity and its relation to underlying anatomy, instead of its visual intensity. In a sub-analysis of 23 patients with a median follow-up of 5.4 months, 90Y PET/CT consistently outperformed 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in all aspects of qualitative analysis, including assessment for non-target activity and tumor vascular thrombosis. Parts of viscera closely adjacent to the liver remain challenging for non-target activity detection, compounded by a tendency for mis-registration.ConclusionsAdherence to proper diagnostic reporting technique and emphasis on continuity of care are vital to the clinical utility of post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT. 90Y PET/CT is superior to 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT for the assessment of target and non-target activity.

Project description:Background The incidence of thyroid lumps is more and more high in population, and most biopsies of thyroid nodules are benign. To develop a practical risk stratification system based on five ultrasound features to stratify the malignancy risk of thyroid neoplasms. Methods This retrospective investigation enrolled 999 consecutive patients with 1,236 thyroid nodules who underwent ultrasound screening. Fine-needle aspiration and/or surgery was performed, and pathology results were obtained at the Seventh Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University in Shenzhen, China, which is a tertiary referral center, from May 2018 to February 2022. Each thyroid nodule’s score was calculated based on five ultrasound features: composition, echogenicity, shape, margin, and echogenic foci. Additionally, each nodule’s malignancy rate was calculated. The chi-square test was used to test whether the malignancy rate was different among the three subcategories (scores of 4–6, 7–8, and 9 or more) of thyroid nodules. We proposed the revised Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (R-TIRADS), and its sensitivity and specificity were compared to the two existing systems [the American College of Radiology TIRADS (ACR TIRADS) and the Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology TIRADS (K-TIRADS)]. Results The final dataset consisted of 425 nodules from 370 patients. The malignancy rates of three subcategories [malignancy rate: 28.8% (scores from 4–6), 64.7% (scores from 7–8), and 84.2% (scores of 9 or more)] were significantly different (P<0.01). The unnecessary biopsy rates of the three systems (ACR TIRADS, R-TIRADS, and K-TIRADS) were 28.7%, 25.2%, and 14.8%, respectively. The R-TIRADS presented better diagnostic performance than the ACR TIRADS or K-TIRADS [area under the curve: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74–0.83) vs. 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64–0.75), P=0.046; 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74–0.83) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.60–0.71), P=0.041, respectively]. The R-TIRADS had the highest sensitivity [0.746 (95% CI: 0.689–0.803)], followed by the K-TIRADS [0.399 (95% CI: 0.335–0.463), P=0.000] and ACR TIRADS [0.377 (95% CI: 0.314–0.441), P=0.000]. Conclusions The R-TIRADS enables radiologists to diagnose thyroid nodules efficiently, and the number of unnecessary fine-needle aspirations can be considerably reduced.

Project description:Objective"Diagnostic yield," also referred to as the detection rate, is a parameter positioned between diagnostic accuracy and diagnosis-related patient outcomes in research studies that assess diagnostic tests. Unfamiliarity with the term may lead to incorrect usage and delivery of information. Herein, we evaluate the level of proper use of the term "diagnostic yield" and its related parameters in articles published in Radiology and Korean Journal of Radiology (KJR).Materials and methodsPotentially relevant articles published since 2012 in these journals were identified using MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases. The initial search yielded 239 articles. We evaluated whether the correct definition and study setting of "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" were used and whether the articles also reported companion parameters for false-positive results. We calculated the proportion of articles that correctly used these parameters and evaluated whether the proportion increased with time (2012-2016 vs. 2017-2022).ResultsAmong 39 eligible articles (19 from Radiology and 20 from KJR), 17 (43.6%; 11 from Radiology and 6 from KJR) correctly defined "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." The remaining 22 articles used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" with incorrect meanings such as "diagnostic performance" or "sensitivity." The proportion of correctly used diagnostic terms was higher in the studies published in Radiology than in those published in KJR (57.9% vs. 30.0%). The proportion improved with time in Radiology (33.3% vs. 80.0%), whereas no improvement was observed in KJR over time (33.3% vs. 27.3%). The proportion of studies reporting companion parameters was similar between journals (72.7% vs. 66.7%), and no considerable improvement was observed over time.ConclusionOverall, a minority of articles accurately used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." Incorrect usage of the terms was more frequent without improvement over time in KJR than in Radiology. Therefore, improvements are required in the use and reporting of these parameters.

Dataset Information

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets