Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often?
To assess the risk of citation bias in imaging diagnostic accuracy research by evaluating whether studies with higher accuracy estimates are cited more frequently than those with lower accuracy estimates.
We searched Medline for diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses published in imaging journals from January 2005 to April 2016. Primary studies from the meta-analyses were screened; those assessing the diagnostic accuracy of an imaging test and reporting sensitivity and specificity were eligible for inclusion. Studies not indexed in Web of Science, duplicates, and inaccessible articles were excluded. Topic (modality/subspecialty), study design, sample size, journal impact factor, publication date, times cited, sensitivity, and specificity were extracted for each study. Negative binomial regression was performed to evaluate the association of citation rate (times cited per month since publication) with Youden’s index (sensitivity + specificity -1), highest sensitivity, and highest specificity, controlling for the potential confounding effects of modality, subspecialty, impact factor, study design, sample size, and source meta-analysis.
There were 1016 primary studies included. A positive association between Youden’s index and citation rate was present, with a regression coefficient of 0.33 (p = 0.016). The regression coefficient for sensitivity was 0.41 (p = 0.034), and for specificity, 0.32 (p = 0.15).
A positive association exists between diagnostic accuracy estimates and citation rates, indicating that there is evidence of citation bias in imaging diagnostic accuracy literature. Overestimation of imaging test accuracy may contribute to patient harm from incorrect interpretation of test results.
• Studies with higher accuracy estimates may be cited more frequently than those with lower accuracy estimates.
• This citation bias could lead clinicians, reviews, and clinical practice guidelines to overestimate the accuracy of imaging tests, contributing to patient harm from incorrect interpretation of test results.
KeywordsDiagnostic test Routine Publication bias Bibliometrics Sensitivity and specificity
Diagnostic test accuracy
Magnetic resonance imaging
Positron emission tomography
This study has received funding by the University of Ottawa, Department of Radiology Research Stipend Program.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Matthew McInnes.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise (Drs McInnes and Bossuyt).
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this study is an evaluation of published literature.
• Cross sectional study
• Multicenter study
- 6.Hutchison BG, Oxman AD, Lloyd S (1995) Comprehensiveness and bias in reporting clinical trials. Study of reviews of pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness. Can Fam Physician 41:1356–1360Google Scholar
- 12.Sharifabadi AD, Korevaar DA, McGrath TM, et al (2018) Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication. Eur Radiol 28:3632−3639Google Scholar
- 13.Frank RA, McInnes MDF (2018) Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often? Study protocol. Retrieved from osf.io/j964xGoogle Scholar
- 18.Reuters T Science citation index expanded-radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging-journal list. Available via: http://science.thomsonreuters.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=D&SC=VY. Accessed 15 Apr 2015
- 19.R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment forstatistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, V., Austria. Available via https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
- 23.Sheth U, Simunovic N, Tornetta P 3rd, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M (2011) Poor citation of prior evidence in hip fracture trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:2079–2086Google Scholar
- 26.Saha S, Saint A, Christakis DA (2003) Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc 9:42–46Google Scholar
- 27.Dilauro M, McInnes MD, Korevaar DA et al (2016) Is there an association between STARD statement adherence and citation rate? Radiology 280:62–67Google Scholar