Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-08-2020 | Radiological Education

How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly

Authors: Steve Halligan, Shedrack F. Kenis, Oshaani Abeyakoon, Andrew A. O. Plumb, Susan Mallett

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2020

Abstract

This review identifies and examines terms used to describe a radiological research “study” or “trial”. A taxonomy of clinical research descriptions is explained with reference to medical imaging examples. Because many descriptive terms have precise methodological implications, it is important that these terms are understood by readers and used correctly by researchers, so that the reader is not misled.

Key Points

• Multiple different terms are being used to describe radiological research “studies” and “trials”, and many of these terms have precise methodological implications.

• Radiological researchers sometimes use titles that describe their research incorrectly. This can mislead the reader as to what was actually done.

• It is important that readers and researchers understand the correct taxonomy of clinical research and that researchers adopt the correct description for their work.

Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P et al (2011) The 2011 Oxford CEBM evidence levels of evidence (introductory document). Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Available via http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

Kenis SF, Abeyakoon O, Plumb AAO, Halligan S (2019) Do radiological research articles apply the term “pilot study” correctly? Systematic review. Clin Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.11.010

Arain M, Campbell MJ, Cooper CL, Lancaster GA (2010) What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:67PubMedPubMedCentral

Olsen M, Zhelev Z, Hunt H, Peters JL, Bossuyt P, Hyde C (2019) Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance. Diagn Progn Res 3:17PubMedPubMedCentral

Ryuge M, Hara M, Hiroe T et al (2019) Mechanisms of recurrent haemoptysis after super-selective bronchial artery coil embolisation: a single-centre retrospective observational study. Eur Radiol 29:707–715PubMed

Takx RA, Vliegenthart R, Mohamed Hoesein FA et al (2015) Pulmonary function and CT biomarkers as risk factors for cardiovascular events in male lung cancer screening participants: the NELSON study. Eur Radiol 25:65–71PubMed

Waterton JC, Ho M, Nordenmark LH et al (2017) Repeatability and response to therapy of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers in rheumatoid arthritis in a large multicentre trial setting. Eur Radiol 27:3662–3668PubMedPubMedCentral

Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet 359:57–61PubMed

Funai EF, Rosenbush EJ, Lee MJ, Del Priore G (2001) Distribution of study designs in four major US journals of obstetrics and gynecology. Gynecol Obstet Invest 51:8–11PubMed

10.

Lv N, Kong Y, Mu L, Pan T, Xie Q, Zhao M (2016) Effect of perioperative parecoxib sodium on postoperative pain control for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective randomized trial. Eur Radiol 26:3492–3499PubMed

11.

Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381:1194–1202PubMed

12.

Schwartz D, Lellouch J (1967) Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 20:637–648PubMed

13.

Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD et al (2009) A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 62:464–475PubMed

14.

Bossuyt PM, Olsen M, Hyde C, Cohen JF (2020) An analysis reveals differences between pragmatic and explanatory diagnostic accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol 117:29–35PubMed

15.

Steckler A, McLeroy KR (2008) The importance of external validity. Am J Public Health 98:9–10PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C (1999) Threats to applicability of randomised trials: exclusions and selective participation. J Health Serv Res Policy 4:112–121PubMed

17.

Ferrante di Ruffano L, Dinnes J, Sitch AJ, Hyde C, Deeks JJ (2017) Test-treatment RCTs are susceptible to bias: a review of the methodological quality of randomized trials that evaluate diagnostic tests. BMC Med Res Methodol 17:35PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2015) STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 277:826–832PubMed

19.

Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P (2006) Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ 332:1089–1092PubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Taylor SA, Mallett S, Beare S et al (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: the prospective streamline C trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 4:529–537PubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Taylor SA, Mallett S, Bhatnagar G et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound for the extent and activity of newly diagnosed and relapsed Crohn’s disease (METRIC): a multicentre trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:548–558PubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A, Leeflang M, Treanor L et al (2019) Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research: evaluation of current practices. Eur Radiol 29:5386–5394PubMed

23.

Obuchowski NA, Beiden SV, Berbaum KS et al (2004) Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods. Acad Radiol 11:980–995PubMed

24.

Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol 26:4371–4379PubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Kim HG, Shin HJ, Kim YH et al (2015) Quantitative computed tomography assessment of graft-versus-host disease-related bronchiolitis obliterans in children: a pilot feasibility study. Eur Radiol 25:2931–2936PubMed

26.

National Institute for Health Research (2020) Definition of feasibility vs. pilot studies. Available via https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/nihr-research-for-patient-benefit-rfpb-programme-guidance-on-applying-for-feasibility-studies/20474 Accessed 10th January 2020

27.

Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R et al (2010) A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:1PubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S et al (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 337:a1655PubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Takeuchi M, Wakao N, Hirasawa A et al (2017) Ultrasonography has a diagnostic value in the assessment of cervical radiculopathy: a prospective pilot study. Eur Radiol 27:3467–3473PubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Julious SA (2004) Sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data. Stat Med 23:1921–1986PubMed

31.

Stallard N (2012) Optimal sample sizes for phase II clinical trials and pilot studies. Stat Med 31:1031–1042PubMed

32.

Altman DG (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 308:283–284PubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124PubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Halpern SD, Karlawish JH, Berlin JA (2002) The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA 288:358–362PubMed

35.

Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes. Lancet 359:341–345PubMed

36.

Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Case-control studies: research in reverse. Lancet 359:431–434PubMed

37.

Darrah TH, Prutsman-Pfeiffer JJ, Poreda RJ, Ellen Campbell M, Hauschka PV, Hannigan RE (2009) Incorporation of excess gadolinium into human bone from medical contrast agents. Metallomics 1:479–488PubMed

38.

Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Vandenbroucke JP, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM (2005) Case-control and two-gate designs in diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem 51:1335–1341PubMed

39.

Gomez-Saez N, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Vilar J et al (2014) Prevalence and variables associated with solitary pulmonary nodules in a routine clinic-based population: a cross-sectional study. Eur Radiol 24:2174–2182PubMedPubMedCentral

40.

EQUATOR NETWORK. Avaialble via https://www.equator-network.org/ Accessed 30th January 2020

41.

Lucas NP, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Bogduk N (2010) The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). J Clin Epidemiol 63:854–861PubMed

42.

Chalkidou A, O’Doherty MJ, Marsden PK (2015) False discovery rates in PET and CT studies with texture features: a systematic review. PLoS One 10:e0124165PubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Ioannidis JPA, Bossuyt PMM (2017) Waste, leaks, and failures in the biomarker pipeline. Clin Chem 63:963–972PubMed

44.

Simon R, Altman DG (1994) Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer 69:979–985PubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Cooper LS, Chalmers TC, McCally M, Berrier J, Sacks HS (1988) The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 259:3277–3280PubMed

46.

Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA et al (2005) Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 235:347–353PubMed

Title: How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly
Authors: Steve Halligan
Shedrack F. Kenis
Oshaani Abeyakoon
Andrew A. O. Plumb
Susan Mallett
Publication date: 01-08-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06720-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly

Abstract

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

Recommendation of low-dose CT in the detection and management of COVID-2019

A clinically feasible 7-Tesla protocol for the identification of cortical lesions in Multiple Sclerosis

Effect of observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in PI-RADS v2.1 assessment category 4 and 5 observations compared to adverse pathological outcomes

The anterior eye chamber: entry of the natural excretion pathway of gadolinium contrast agents?

Radiomics analysis of lung CT image for the early detection of metastases in patients with breast cancer: preliminary findings from a retrospective cohort study

Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review