Literature DB >> 30051140

Epidemiology of systematic reviews in imaging journals: evaluation of publication trends and sustainability?

M Alabousi1, A Alabousi1,2, T A McGrath3, K D Cobey4,5,6,7, B Budhram3, R A Frank3, F Nguyen3, J P Salameh5, A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi3, M D F McInnes8.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the epidemiology of systematic reviews (SRs) published in imaging journals.
METHODS: A MEDLINE search identified SRs published in imaging journals from 1 January 2000-31 December 2016. Articles retrieved were screened against inclusion criteria. Demographic and methodological characteristics were extracted from studies. Temporal trends were evaluated using linear regression and Pearson's correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: 921 SRs were included that reported on 27,435 primary studies, 85,276,484 patients and were cited 26,961 times. The SR publication rate increased 23-fold (r=0.92, p<0.001) while the proportion of SRs to non-SRs increased 13-fold (r = 0.94, p<0.001) from 2000 (0.10%) to 2016 (1.33%). Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) SRs were most frequent (46.5%) followed by therapeutic SRs (16.6%). Most SRs did not report funding status (54.2%). The median author team size was five; this increased over time (r=0.20, p<0.001). Of the studies, 67.3% included an imaging specialist co-author; this decreased over time (r=-0.57, p=0.017). Most SRs included a meta-analysis (69.6%). Journal impact factor positively correlated with SR publication rates (r=0.54, p<0.001). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 'vascular and interventional radiology' were the most frequently studied imaging modality and subspecialty, respectively. The USA, UK, China, Netherlands and Canada were the top five publishing countries.
CONCLUSIONS: The SR publication rate is increasing rapidly compared with the rate of growth of non-SRs; however, they still make up just over 1% of all studies. Authors, reviewers and editors should be aware of methodological and reporting standards specific to imaging systematic reviews including those for DTA and individual patient data. KEY POINTS: • Systematic review publication rate has increased 23-fold from 2000-2016. • The proportion of systematic reviews to non-systematic reviews has increased 13-fold. • The USA, UK and China are the most frequent published countries; those from the USA and China are increasing the most rapidly.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic imaging/trends; Epidemiology/methods and epidemiology/trends; Meta-analysis; Publications/trends; Research design/trends

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30051140     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5567-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  34 in total

1.  Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy.

Authors:  K G Shojania; L A Bero
Journal:  Eff Clin Pract       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug

Review 2.  Correlation and simple linear regression.

Authors:  Kelly H Zou; Kemal Tuncali; Stuart G Silverman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?

Authors:  Adam S Tunis; Matthew D F McInnes; Ramez Hanna; Kaisra Esmail
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence.

Authors:  M Hassan Murad; Victor M Montori
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  The 100 most-cited articles in the imaging literature.

Authors:  Waleed Brinjikji; Alexa Klunder; David F Kallmes
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting.

Authors:  Richard D Riley; Paul C Lambert; Ghada Abo-Zaid
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-02-05

7.  Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?

Authors:  Hilda Bastian; Paul Glasziou; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.

Authors:  David Moher; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Andrea C Tricco; Margaret Sampson; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-03-27       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  The geometric increase in meta-analyses from China in the genomic era.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Christine Q Chang; Tram Kim Lam; Sheri D Schully; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research: evaluation of current practices.

Authors:  Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; Mariska Leeflang; Lee Treanor; Noemie Kraaijpoel; Jean-Paul Salameh; Mostafa Alabousi; Nabil Asraoui; Jade Choo-Foo; Yemisi Takwoingi; Jonathan J Deeks; Matthew D F McInnes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Prevalence Of Review Studies Published In Rehabilitation Journals During The Last Decade.

Authors:  Mikhail Saltychev; Katri Laimi
Journal:  J Rehabil Med Clin Commun       Date:  2018-11-16

3.  Evaluating the relationship between citation set size, team size and screening methods used in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Katie O'Hearn; Cameron MacDonald; Anne Tsampalieros; Leo Kadota; Ryan Sandarage; Supun Kotteduwa Jayawarden; Michele Datko; John M Reynolds; Thanh Bui; Shagufta Sultan; Margaret Sampson; Misty Pratt; Nick Barrowman; Nassr Nama; Matthew Page; James Dayre McNally
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Methodological and Clinical Heterogeneity and Extraction Errors in Meta-Analyses of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure.

Authors:  Milton Packer
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 5.501

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.