2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5801-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
26
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
26
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, it has been documented that wide disease spectrum, non-consecutive recruitment, open-label reading of tests, and retrospective data collection were associated with higher estimate of diagnostic accuracy [35]. In this review [33,36], the proportion of high-risk patients varied from 17 to 100%, approximately 50% of the trials stated consecutive recruitment, and blinding of readers were seldom reported. There were five prospective trials, but only one prospective, interventional trial with consecutive enrollment [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Also, it has been documented that wide disease spectrum, non-consecutive recruitment, open-label reading of tests, and retrospective data collection were associated with higher estimate of diagnostic accuracy [35]. In this review [33,36], the proportion of high-risk patients varied from 17 to 100%, approximately 50% of the trials stated consecutive recruitment, and blinding of readers were seldom reported. There were five prospective trials, but only one prospective, interventional trial with consecutive enrollment [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Such analysis may also permit an assessment of the impact of specific authors and their affiliated institutions, research journals and countries of origin. Citation counts are influenced by factors such as the level and hierarchy of evidence [5], the presence of statistically significant results [6,7], and title length [8]. Indeed, similar findings have been corroborated in the radiology literature [9].…”
Section: Open Accessmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Critics of citation analysis note that many citations may be perfunctory or redundant, as opposed to significant ones that stimulate a new idea, provide a new method, or otherwise provide an integral part of the citing paper [ 79 ]. Authors may not even cite key influences on their work at all because they are not in a convenient citable form or because of ‘traditional non-citation’ for some sources such as established experimental or analytical techniques [ 5 ], or exercise conscious or sub-conscious bias in selecting studies to cite (for example, a tendency to cite positive studies more than negative ones is noted in fields as diverse as ecotoxicology [ 7 ], diagnostic imaging [ 80 ], and biomedical science [ 6 , 8 ]). Thus, the high citations reported are indicative of use, but not necessarily of quality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%