Interpretation of Digital Chest Radiographs: Comparison of Light Emitting Diode versus Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp Backlit Monitors

Lim, Hyunyoung; Chung, Myung Jin; Lee, Geewon; Yie, Miyeon; Shin, Kyung Eun; Moon, Jung Won; Lee, Kyung Soo

doi:10.3348/kjr.2013.14.6.968

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, 60 were excluded because they were letters, editorials, or abstracts instead of a full article (n = 1), a case report or series (n = 2), a review article (n = 16), or not in the field of interest (n = 41). Thus, 63 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria ( 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo determine the rate with which diagnostic test accuracy studies that are published in a general radiology journal adhere to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015, and to explore the relationship between adherence rate and citation rate while avoiding confounding by journal factors.Materials and MethodsAll eligible diagnostic test accuracy studies that were published in the Korean Journal of Radiology in 2011–2015 were identified. Five reviewers assessed each article for yes/no compliance with 27 of the 30 STARD 2015 checklist items (items 28, 29, and 30 were excluded). The total STARD score (number of fulfilled STARD items) was calculated. The score of the 15 STARD items that related directly to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was also calculated. The number of times each article was cited (as indicated by the Web of Science) after publication until March 2016 and the article exposure time (time in months between publication and March 2016) were extracted.ResultsSixty-three articles were analyzed. The mean (range) total and QUADAS-2-related STARD scores were 20.0 (14.5–25) and 11.4 (7–15), respectively. The mean citation number was 4 (0–21). Citation number did not associate significantly with either STARD score after accounting for exposure time (total score: correlation coefficient = 0.154, p = 0.232; QUADAS-2-related score: correlation coefficient = 0.143, p = 0.266).ConclusionThe degree of adherence to STARD 2015 was moderate for this journal, indicating that there is room for improvement. When adjusted for exposure time, the degree of adherence did not affect the citation rate.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After screening 239 records, 168 were excluded and 71 were thoroughly reviewed. Further 32 articles were then excluded [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ]. Finally, 39 articles (19 from Radiology and 20 from KJR ) were included in the analysis [ 10 11 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of “Diagnostic Yield” in Imaging Research Reports: Results from Articles Published in Two General Radiology Journals

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective “Diagnostic yield,” also referred to as the detection rate, is a parameter positioned between diagnostic accuracy and diagnosis-related patient outcomes in research studies that assess diagnostic tests. Unfamiliarity with the term may lead to incorrect usage and delivery of information. Herein, we evaluate the level of proper use of the term “diagnostic yield” and its related parameters in articles published in Radiology and Korean Journal of Radiology ( KJR ). Materials and Methods Potentially relevant articles published since 2012 in these journals were identified using MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases. The initial search yielded 239 articles. We evaluated whether the correct definition and study setting of “diagnostic yield” or “detection rate” were used and whether the articles also reported companion parameters for false-positive results. We calculated the proportion of articles that correctly used these parameters and evaluated whether the proportion increased with time (2012–2016 vs. 2017–2022). Results Among 39 eligible articles (19 from Radiology and 20 from KJR ), 17 (43.6%; 11 from Radiology and 6 from KJR ) correctly defined “diagnostic yield” or “detection rate.” The remaining 22 articles used “diagnostic yield” or “detection rate” with incorrect meanings such as “diagnostic performance” or “sensitivity.” The proportion of correctly used diagnostic terms was higher in the studies published in Radiology than in those published in KJR (57.9% vs. 30.0%). The proportion improved with time in Radiology (33.3% vs. 80.0%), whereas no improvement was observed in KJR over time (33.3% vs. 27.3%). The proportion of studies reporting companion parameters was similar between journals (72.7% vs. 66.7%), and no considerable improvement was observed over time. Conclusion Overall, a minority of articles accurately used “diagnostic yield” or “detection rate.” Incorrect usage of the terms was more frequent without improvement over time in KJR than in Radiology . Therefore, improvements are required in the use and reporting of these parameters.

show abstract

“…Regarding the DTA studies, one reviewer experienced in DTA studies selected eligible articles according to criteria established elsewhere ( 9 ) with additional confirmation by another DTA expert in cases of ambiguity. Of the initial 124 candidate articles, 63 articles ( 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ) were finally included. Regarding the studies that analyzed reliability, eligible articles were chosen by consensus after review by two of four independent reviewers experienced in the relevant methodology.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the frequency and adequacy of statistical analyses in a general radiology journal when reporting a reliability analysis for a diagnostic test.Materials and MethodsSixty-three studies of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and 36 studies reporting reliability analyses published in the Korean Journal of Radiology between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Studies were judged using the methodological guidelines of the Radiological Society of North America-Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (RSNA-QIBA), and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative. DTA studies were evaluated by nine editorial board members of the journal. Reliability studies were evaluated by study reviewers experienced with reliability analysis.ResultsThirty-one (49.2%) of the 63 DTA studies did not include a reliability analysis when deemed necessary. Among the 36 reliability studies, proper statistical methods were used in all (5/5) studies dealing with dichotomous/nominal data, 46.7% (7/15) of studies dealing with ordinal data, and 95.2% (20/21) of studies dealing with continuous data. Statistical methods were described in sufficient detail regarding weighted kappa in 28.6% (2/7) of studies and regarding the model and assumptions of intraclass correlation coefficient in 35.3% (6/17) and 29.4% (5/17) of studies, respectively. Reliability parameters were used as if they were agreement parameters in 23.1% (3/13) of studies. Reproducibility and repeatability were used incorrectly in 20% (3/15) of studies.ConclusionGreater attention to the importance of reporting reliability, thorough description of the related statistical methods, efforts not to neglect agreement parameters, and better use of relevant terminology is necessary.

show abstract

Interpretation of Digital Chest Radiographs: Comparison of Light Emitting Diode versus Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp Backlit Monitors

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

Use of “Diagnostic Yield” in Imaging Research Reports: Results from Articles Published in Two General Radiology Journals

Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About