Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Positron Emission Tomography | Original Article

The 100 top-cited meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in radiology journals: a bibliometric analysis

Authors: Kaspar L. Yaxley, Minh-Son To

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To identify the 100 top-cited meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies published in radiology, medical imaging and nuclear medicine journals.

Methods

A PubMed search with pre-defined criteria was performed. The 100 top-cited articles meta-analyses were retrieved, using a custom Python script and the Scopus Application Programming Interface (Elsevier). Publication, citation and affiliation details were extracted from each meta-analysis. No formal statistical analysis was performed.

Results

The top meta-analysis was cited 394 times, the 100th meta-analysis 38 times. The USA was the top country represented in the papers (33 meta-analyses) followed by The Netherlands, China and Germany. The journal Radiology published 24 studies. The most common modality reported was positron emission tomography (PET) or PET computed tomography (36 instances), followed by magnetic resonance imaging (30 instances) and computed tomography (27 instances). Cardiac (19 meta-analyses), abdominal (18 meta-analyses), followed by neurological (12 meta-analyses) investigations were the most frequently encountered in the top 100 cited meta-analyses.

Conclusions

The 100 top-cited meta-analyses encompass a broad range of imaging modalities and body regions. This may comprise a useful resource for identifying influential evidence-based diagnostic accuracy information in radiology.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Mallett S, Halligan S, Thompson M, Collins GS, Altman DG (2012) Interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies for patient care. BMJ 345:e3999CrossRef
2.
McGrath TA, McInnes MD, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PM (2016) Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in imaging journals: analysis of pooling techniques and their effect on summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 281(1):78–85CrossRef
3.
Choudhri AF, Siddiqui A, Khan NR, Cohen HL (2015) Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics 35(3):736–746CrossRef
4.
van Raan T (2003) The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments. Theory Praxis 12(1):20–29
5.
Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP (2005) Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 293(19):2362–2366CrossRef
6.
Frank RA, Sharifabadi AD, Salameh JP, McGrath TA, Kraaijpoel N, Dang W et al (2019) Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often? Eur Radiol 29(4):1657–1664CrossRef
7.
Jannot AS, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger TV (2013) Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. J Clin Epidemiol 66(3):296–301CrossRef
8.
Letchford A, Moat HS, Preis T (2015) The advantage of short paper titles. R Soc Open Sci 2(8):150266CrossRef
9.
Shekhani HN, Shariff S, Bhulani N, Khosa F, Hanna TN (2017) Bibliometric analysis of manuscript characteristics that influence citations: a comparison of six major radiology journals. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209(6):1191–1196CrossRef
10.
Analytics C. 2018 Journal Impact Factor, Journal Citation Reports 2019
11.
Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58(10):982–990CrossRef
12.
Hillner BE, Tosteson AN, Song Y, Tosteson TD, Onega T, Goodman DC et al (2012) Growth in the use of PET for six cancer types after coverage by medicare: additive or replacement? J Am Coll Radiol 9(1):33–41CrossRef
13.
de Galiza Barbosa F, Delso G, Ter Voert EE, Huellner MW, Herrmann K, Veit-Haibach P (2016) Multi-technique hybrid imaging in PET/CT and PET/MR: what does the future hold? Clin Radiol 71(7):660–672CrossRef
14.
Slomka PJ, Pan T, Germano G (2016) Recent Advances and Future Progress in PET Instrumentation. Semin Nucl Med 46(1):5–19CrossRef
15.
Barta JA, Powell CA, Wisnivesky JP (2019) Global Epidemiology of Lung Cancer. Ann Glob Health 85(1):8CrossRef
16.
Chiles C (2014) Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. Radiol Clin North Am 52(1):27–46CrossRef
17.
Lee J, Kim KW, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part II. Statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 16(6):1188–1196CrossRef
18.
Leeflang MMG, Reitsma JB (2018) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing comparative test accuracy questions. Diagn Progn Res 2(1):17CrossRef
19.
Yoon DY, Yun EJ, Ku YJ, Baek S, Lim KJ, Seo YL et al (2013) Citation classics in radiology journals: the 100 top-cited articles, 1945–2012. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(3):471–481CrossRef
20.
Pagni M, Khan NR, Cohen HL, Choudhri AF (2014) Highly cited works in radiology: the top 100 cited articles in radiologic journals. Acad Radiol 21(8):1056–1066CrossRef
21.
Brinjikji W, Klunder A, Kallmes DF (2013) The 100 most-cited articles in the imaging literature. Radiology 269(1):272–276CrossRef
22.
Horsthuis K, Bipat S, Bennink RJ, Stoker J (2008) Inflammatory bowel disease diagnosed with US, MR, scintigraphy, and CT: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Radiology 247(1):64–79CrossRef
23.
Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW (2009) Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 302(10):1092–1096CrossRef
24.
Tahamtan I, Safipour Afshar A, Ahamdzadeh K (2016) Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics 107(3):1195–1225CrossRef
25.
Lokker C, McKibbon KA, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB (2008) Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 336(7645):655–657CrossRef
26.
Eysenbach G (2006) Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol 4(5):e157CrossRef
27.
Craig ID, Plum A, Mcveigh ME, Pringle J, Amin M (2007) Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: a critical review of the literature. J Informetr 1(3):239–248CrossRef
28.
Davis PM, Lewenstein BV, Simon DH, Booth JG, Connolly MJ (2008) Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 337:a568CrossRef
29.
McInnes MD, Bossuyt PM (2015) Pitfalls of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in imaging research. Radiology 277(1):13–21CrossRef
30.
McGrath TA, Alabousi M, Skidmore B, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PMM, Moher D et al (2017) Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review. Syst Rev 6(1):194CrossRef
31.
Tunis AS, McInnes MDF, Hanna R, Esmail K (2013) 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? Radiology 269(2):413–426CrossRef
32.
McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, the PRISMA-DTA Group et al (2018) Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319(4):388–396CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The 100 top-cited meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in radiology journals: a bibliometric analysis
Authors
Kaspar L. Yaxley
Minh-Son To
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00936-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Insights into Imaging 1/2020 Go to the issue

Statement

The identity and role of the radiologist in 2020: a survey among ESR full radiologist members

Educational Review

Imaging indications and findings in evaluation of lung transplant graft dysfunction and rejection

Original Article

Lean body weight versus total body weight to calculate the iodinated contrast media volume in abdominal CT: a randomised controlled trial

Educational Review

Gallstones top to toe: what the radiologist needs to know

Critical Review

Women in focus: advice from the front lines on how to enable well-being and build resilience

Statement

Summary of the proceedings of the International Forum 2019: “What are the strategies to engage the young generation”