No abstract

• Higher accuracy estimates are weakly associated with shorter time to publication. • Lag in time to publication remained significant in multivariate Cox regression analyses. • No correlation between accuracy and time from submission to publication was identified.

eporting bias in biomedical research results in delays and leads to a lack of publication of insignificant study results. It is well documented that trials of therapeutic interventions with insignificant or negative results are less likely to reach full-text publication in peer-reviewed journals; this is typically called publication or reporting bias (1-5). This may lead to bias in syntheses of available literature, such as systematic reviews, leading to overestimates of the effectiveness of interventions (2,(6)(7)(8).In contrast to the well-documented phenomenon and impact of publication bias in therapeutic interventional studies, publication bias in diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) research is not well understood. More than 50% of conference abstracts presented at imaging research meetings do not go on to full-text publication (9-12). Imaging researchers often evaluate DTA, which does not generate a significant result. Instead, these studies produce measures of DTA, such as sensitivity and specificity, which can be considered as a proxy for statistical significance, as has been done in previous evaluations of publication bias in DTA research (13)(14)(15)(16)(17).A recent study showed that imaging studies with higher DTA are published faster than those with lower DTA ( 14); however, it is unknown whether such studies are more likely to be published. A Cochrane systematic review found that conference abstracts of interventional studies that reported at least one significant result were 30% more likely to reach full-text publication than were those that did not (18). However, similar studies of DTA research presented

No abstract

Purpose: To report the current application review and selection process in our Canadian diagnostic radiology program at the University of Ottawa for both Canadian and international medical graduates. Application Review and Selection Process: Submitted applications fulfilling institutional requirements were selected for a detailed file review after preliminary screening. A diverse group of file reviewers and interviewers was selected. Interviews were offered based on file review score sheet outcomes. Each interviewer generated a postinterview rank list. Applicants were reviewed and discussed from highest to lowest rank based on a preliminary compiled rank list generated from the average of the postinterview rank lists. Group discussion and a consensus model were used to create a final applicant rank list. Conclusions: We outlined our systematic, consistent selection process which aligns with current best practices. This description may inform other programs wishing to adopt or optimize strategies to improve candidate assessments and selection processes.