Search

Purpose: To develop French guidelines by experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)., Materials and Methods: Evidence-based data and opinions of experts of GRERCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Radiologie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Imaging Research Group]) and GRECCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Chirurgie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Surgery Research Group]) were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts scoring of reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analyzed and classified as "Recommended" versus "Not recommended" (when ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (when < 80% consensus among experts)., Results: Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed., Conclusion: These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer staging with MRI., (Copyright © 2021 Société française de radiologie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To retrospectively quantify the incidence of redundant publication in the journal Radiology and to compare the present study findings with those published for other journals and medical specialties., Materials and Methods: Two readers estimated the incidence of the redundant publication of original articles in Radiology in the year 2001. Original research articles published in 2001 were analyzed by searching MEDLINE on the PubMed server to identify articles that may have represented a duplication of the original Radiology article. MEDLINE was searched between January 1999 and December 2003 by using the surname and initial(s) of the first author. Potentially redundant articles were identified after similarities in titles and abstracts were analyzed. The full versions of all potentially redundant articles and of the corresponding index articles were then retrieved from the library. The potentially redundant article was then compared with the index article. Criteria for redundant publication were as follows: Compared with the index article, the potentially duplicate article had (a) a similar hypothesis, (b) a similar number of subjects, (c) similar results, (d) at least one author in common, and (e) no or little new information., Results: In 2001, 362 original research articles were published in Radiology. Two instances of redundant publication were found among these articles, and both were considered to be partially redundant publications due to series expansions (ie, increased numbers of study subjects) of 50% and 52%., Conclusion: Redundant publication appears to be less frequent in Radiology than in the other journals and specialties for which redundant publication information has been reported., ((c) RSNA, 2008.)

Purpose: To compare and quantify, by means of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and localization ROC analyses, the performance of radiologists, pulmonologists, and anesthesiologists (residents and staff) in the detection of missed lung cancer., Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was not required or obtained for review of radiographs. A set of 60 posteroanterior chest radiographs was presented to 36 observers: 12 radiologists, 12 pulmonologists, and 12 anesthesiologists. Each of these three observer categories included six residents and six staff. Thirty of the radiographs each depicted one lung cancer that was overlooked at prospective image interpretation; the other 30 were normal radiographs matched for age and smoking history. Observers were asked to rate their degree of suspicion concerning the presence of lung cancer by using a visual analog scale and to point out the zone of suspicion on a schematic of the lung. These data were used to generate combined ROC-localization ROC curves and to assess performance. Intraobserver consistency was evaluated by using intraclass correlation coefficients and weighted kappa statistics., Results: Areas under the ROC curves indicated better performance for radiologists and pulmonologists compared with anesthesiologists (P < .002) and for staff compared with residents (P < .022). Performance was lower for all categories of observers when localization ROC curves were used. Radiologists and staff pulmonologists showed a higher degree of confidence in the assessment of normality than did other categories of physicians. Intraobserver consistency was poor., Conclusion: Experienced readers showed better ability to distinguish normality from abnormality. Combined ROC and localization ROC analyses gave a more reliable quantification of observer performance than did ROC analysis alone., ((c) RSNA, 2004.)

Purpose: To determine the rate at which original studies that were presented orally at the 1995 Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Scientific Assembly were published in Medline-indexed journals and to identify factors predictive of publication., Materials and Methods: The 1995 RSNA Scientific Program was jointly reviewed by two readers. A total of 1,897 abstracts were included in the study. A Medline search of articles published between 1996 and 2000 was then conducted to identify articles written by the first, second, and/or last authors of all abstracts published in the 1995 RSNA Scientific Program. The year of publication, journal, country origin of the abstract, subspecialty, and nature of the research (ie, human, animal, or technical) were recorded. Publication rates were compared by using multiple logistic regression analysis., Results: Six hundred thirty-five abstracts were expanded into manuscripts that were subsequently published in Medline-indexed journals; thus, the publication rate was 33%. A study was published less than 3 years after the 1995 scientific assembly in 595 (94%) cases. Genitourinary radiology and chest radiology studies had the highest publication rates (46% and 48%, respectively; P <.01), whereas physics studies had the lowest (24%, P <.001). Technical studies (24%, P <.001) were less likely than human studies (36%, P <.001) to be published. The publication rate also differed substantially according to the country origin of the abstract. The articles were published in a total of 109 journals and chiefly in Radiology (211 cases, 33% of published studies)., Conclusion: One-third of original studies presented orally at the 1995 scientific assembly were subsequently published in Medline-indexed journals. More articles were published in Radiology than in any other identified journal., (Copyright RSNA, 2004)

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to determine the publication rate in Medline-indexed journals of papers originally presented at the Journées Françaises de Radiologie (JFR96)., Materials and Methods: Proceedings from the JFR 96 were reviewed by two observers in conference. A Medline search encompassing 1997-1999 was performed for the lead author of all abstracts of original papers. Publication year and the journal of publication were recorded., Results: 456 oral presentations were analysed, 39 papers were subsequently published corresponding to a publication rate of 8.5%. 10 papers were published in Radiology, 4 in European Radiology and 4 in the Journal de Radiologie, the other 21 in other journals. Publication rate was significantly higher for two sessions: Research session (publication rate was 22%) and Bone and Joint session (publication rate was 16%)., Conclusion: Less than 10% of abstracts presented at JFR 96 were subsequently published in Medline-indexed journals. This rate is lower than the publication rate of papers presented at other medical meetings.

Purpose: To develop and evaluate a scale for assessment of the methodological quality for clinical investigations of radiologic studies., Materials and Methods: A scale was developed that included methodological standards compiled from established sources for assessing the methodological quality of study designs in clinical research and characteristics related to biases commonly observed in clinical radiologic research. The scale was composed of 15 standards and was tested with the results of 96 studies on imaging of liver hemangioma. Interrater reliability was measured between two observers by using percentage agreement and kappa statistics. Interrater reliability between two observers for a composite quality index that encompassed the 15 standards was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient., Results: Agreement between the two observers was almost perfect (kappa value, 0.8-1.0) for 11 standards and substantial (kappa value, 0.74-0.78) for four standards. Agreement between the observers with regard to the composite quality index also was high (intraclass correlation coefficient r, 0.91 [95% CI: 0.87, 0.94])., Conclusion: The scale appears to be reliable for the assessment of methodological quality of clinical investigations of radiologic studies.