2016: Reviewing for radiology-reporting guidelines and why we use them

Radiology

Volumn 280, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 659-662

  Levine, Deborah ^a   Kressel, Herbert Y ^a  

^a BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS;

GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RADIOLOGY;

EID: 84986237289     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016161204     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005;294(2):218-228.
2. Lehrer J. The truth wears off. New Yorker. Dec 13, 2010.
3. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374(9683):86-89.
4. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2(8):e124.
5. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008; 336(7659):1472-1474.
6. Vähänikkilä H, Tjäderhane L, Nieminen P. The statistical reporting quality of articles published in 2010 in five dental journals. Acta Odontol Scand 2015;73(1):76-80.
7. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Peer review in scientific publications. http://www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed March 31, 2016.
8. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008;3(8):e3081.
9. Papathanasiou AA, Zintzaras E. Assessing the quality of reporting of observational studies in cancer. Ann Epidemiol 2010;20(1): 67-73.
10. Nieuwenhuis S, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance. Nat Neurosci 2011;14(9):1105-1107.
11. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Peer review in scientific publications. London, England: House of Commons, 2011.
12. Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 2014; 505(7485):612-613.
13. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One 2012;7(4):e35621.
14. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185(5):263-267.
15. Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology 2006;67(5):792-797. [Published correction appears in Neurology 2008; 71(2):152.]
16. Prady SL, Richmond SJ, Morton VM, Macpherson H. A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials. PLoS One 2008;3(2):e1577.
17. Levine D, Kressel HY. Radiology 2016: the care and scientific rigor used to process and evaluate original research manuscripts for publication. Radiology 2016;278(1):6-10.
18. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2015;277(3):826-832.
19. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM). STROBE (2007) checklists, version 4 2007. http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=available-checklists. Accessed January 13, 2016.
20. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340:c332.
21. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151(4):W65-W94.
22. McInnes MD, Hibbert RM, Inácio JR, Schieda N. Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma: accuracy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging-a systematic review. Radiology 2015;277(2):413-423. [Published correction appears in Radiology 2015; 277(3):927.]
23. Levine D, Bankier AA, Kressel HY. Spin in radiology research: let the data speak for themselves. Radiology 2013;267(2):324-325.
24. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002. doi:10.17226/10430.
25. Proto AV. Radiology 2007: reviewing for Radiology. Radiology 2007;244(1):7-11.