Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Is Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation Rates?

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates.

Methods

All SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007–Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided.

Results

129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.

Conclusion

There is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF.

Citation: van der Pol CB, McInnes MDF, Petrcich W, Tunis AS, Hanna R (2015) Is Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation Rates? PLoS ONE 10(3): e0119892. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119892

Academic Editor: Terence J. Quinn, University of Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: July 15, 2014; Accepted: January 20, 2015; Published: March 16, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 van der Pol et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Financial support from the University of Ottawa Department of Radiology for statistical analysis.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Impact factor (IF) is a metric that attempts to quantify the overall citation rate of a journal [1]. It is widely considered a measure of journal prestige, and is often used to measure the research performance of investigators and institutions [2–4]. As a journal’s IF depends on the number of times a journal’s articles are cited, there has been interest across a variety of medical specialties to determine factors which are associated with citation [5–9]. More recently, there has been increased reference to journal IF in radiology publications [10–13].

A journal’s IF is calculated by determining the number of times the articles published in a journal over a preceding period of time are cited by indexed journals within a year, divided by the total number of “citable items” published in the journal during the same preceding period of time [14]. This calculation is often skewed by outlying articles, specifically articles that receive a high number of post-publication citations [10,15]. A journal’s IF therefore does not represent the number of citations for each individual article, but rather the sum of all citations of all published articles. The impact of any single article cannot be assumed based on the IF of the journal it was published in [16,17].

As one of the highest levels of evidence available in the diagnostic imaging literature, systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) are conducted in attempt to produce high impact findings [18]. These pool existing data to eliminate bias, increase sample size and ultimately provide stronger answers to clinical questions than can be achieved from any individual component study [19–21]. Yet factors associated with post-publication citations of diagnostic imaging related SR & MA have not been well characterized. In particular, it is unclear if the quality or completeness of SR & MA affects how often they are cited.

Several tools have been developed to quantify the quality and completeness of SR & MA [22–24]. These include “The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews” (AMSTAR) [22] to assess quality, and the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) statement to assess completeness of reporting [24]. The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of SR & MA published in high IF radiology journals are associated with individual article citation rates.

Materials and Methods

Study selection and data extraction

A search was performed in MEDLINE to identify SR & MA published in radiology journals with an impact factor >2.75 based on the Thomson ISI ranking. A radiology journal was defined as any journal included on the Thomson ISI ranking that primarily published articles related to any aspect of medical imaging. This included any radiology subspecialty specific journals. Medical imaging related SR & MA published in non-radiology journals were excluded. A threshold of 2.75 was chosen to include studies in the most frequently cited radiology journals while limiting the total number of studies to a manageable amount. The search was limited to English language articles published between Jan 2007–Dec 2011. Two investigators independently retrieved and reviewed all included articles, with discrepancies resolved by consensus (A.S.T., a third year radiology resident and M.D.F.M., a staff radiologist with more than 3 years of experience in the performance and review of SR & MA).

Data extraction was performed independently on included articles by two investigators (A.S.T. and R.H., both third year radiology residents) and assessed using AMSTAR & PRISMA checklists (S1 Fig. and S1 Table). The first ten articles were reviewed in consensus to become familiar with application of the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Following this, all remaining articles were reviewed independently. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus or, if there was persistent disagreement, discussed with a third investigator (M.D.F.M.). The detailed methods can be found in the previously published paper titled “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?” [25].

Outcome measure assessment

The number of citations for each individual SR & MA was documented based on the number of citations indexed through Google Scholar [26] as of April 5, 2014. A post-publication citation rate was then calculated by dividing the total number of citations for each article by the total number of months since the earliest date of publication (e.g. epub ahead of print date) [27,28]. The purpose of using a citation rate rather than absolute post-publication citation counts was to eliminate the effect of varying amounts of time since publication, since studies published earlier have had more time to accumulate citations.

Statistical analysis

Median AMSTAR and PRISMA results were reported, along with the interobserver agreement as calculated using the kappa coefficient (κ) for all SR & MA except the first ten, which were reviewed in consensus. Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) were used to assess for correlation between AMSTAR result and citation rate, PRISMA result and citation rate, journal IF and citation rate, and journal 5-year IF and citation rate. A multivariate analysis was performed: Spearman partial correlations were performed to assess the associations between AMSTAR or PRISMA results and post-publication citation rate while controlling for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF. Scatter plots were created to demonstrate the distribution of citation rates relative to AMSTAR and PRISMA results with polynomial lines fitted to data using LOESS (local polynomial regression fitting) [29]. All statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA). Values are reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR).

Results

129 studies from 11 journals were identified that met our inclusion criteria [30–158] (S2 Table). A meta-regression analysis [159] included by Tunis et al. [25] was excluded from our study since it was not a systematic review. The median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The overall inter-observer agreement was moderate for the PRISMA results with κ = 0.57, and higher for the AMSTAR results with κ = 0.69. The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). Scatter plots show the distribution of citation rates relative to AMSTAR result (Fig. 1) and PRISMA result (Fig. 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Scatter plot demonstrating the distribution of citations rates for each AMSTAR result.

Solid line: polynomials fitted to all data using LOESS [29]. Dashed line: polynomials linking subsets of data. Double dot-and-dash line: straight lines fitted to subsets of data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Scatter plot demonstrating the distribution of citations rates for each PRISMA result.

Solid line: polynomials fitted to all data using LOESS [29]. Dashed line: polynomials linking subsets of data. Double dot-and-dash line: straight lines fitted to subsets of data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.g002

A positive correlation was observed between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rates; ρ = 0.323 (P = 0.0002) and ρ = 0.327 (P = 0.0002) respectively. Slightly stronger correlation was observed between journal IF and citation rates; ρ = 0.333 (P = 0.0001), and journal 5-year IF and citation rates; ρ = 0.379 (P<0.0001).

After multivariate analysis, a positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ = 0.243 (P = 0.006) and ρ = 0.256 (P = 0.004) respectively. Similarly, a positive correlation persisted after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ = 0.235 (P = 0.008) and ρ = 0.243 (P = 0.006) respectively.

Discussion

Our results suggest that the quality and completeness of SR & MA reported in high impact radiology journals is associated with post-publication citation rates. This association persisted on multivariate analysis. Although nearly the same study population was used as in a study by Tunis et al. [25], the purpose of our study was entirely different. Thus we felt an independent publication was warranted.

Radiology journals with an IF >2.75 may be more likely to publish SR & MA. Even though we limited our assessment to journals with a high IF, our use of multivariate analysis to partial out the effect of journal IF and 5-year IF should help correct for the fact that these journals are more frequently cited. Despite including only “high impact” journals, at the time of our analysis, none of the journals required submission of a PRISMA checklist along with a submitted manuscript. Radiology was the only journal that had endorsed the PRISMA statement. It is our hope that our findings encourage editors to endorse and authors to adhere to the PRISMA checklist in the future.

Comparison to other studies

Prior studies have investigated factors associated with post-publication citation counts. Several factors shown to correlate with more citations include: study design and study topic in the urology literature [5]; high levels of evidence, large sample size, multi-institutional studies and conflict of interest disclosure in the orthopedic surgery literature [6]; extended description of statistical analysis [7]; statistically significant papers in the psychiatry literature [8]; being indexed in numerous databases, number of authors, clinical relevance scores and number of cited references [9]; and article length in the general medicine literature [160]. We are unaware of any prior work assessing the effect of SR & MA study quality and completeness on post-publication citation rates.

A study by Royle et al. investigated factors associated with higher citation counts of SR [16]. They found that the number of authors, first author from the United States, an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms, type of intervention classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening, and having an international collaboration all correlated with increased citation counts. Similar to our study, they found that journal IF was a stronger predictor of citations.

A prior investigation of studies that were originally submitted to an emergency medicine specialty meeting found study design and quality did not correlate with post-publication citation rates [161]. Unlike in our study, they did not exclusively evaluate SR & MA, did not apply the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists, and did not specifically look at the diagnostic imaging literature. Similar to our study and the study by Royle et al., they found that journal IF was more important than any other variable for post-publication counts.

It is interesting to note that our results confirm previous findings—namely that higher quality studies are cited more frequently. It is also interesting to note that the median number of citations/month was 0.73 (8.7 citations/year); this is considerably higher than the number of citations typically seen in our included cohort of radiology journals whose 2011 impact factors range from 2.75–6.07 [162]. This supports prior findings that studies of higher levels of evidence are cited more often [5,6,163].

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. Cross-referencing Google Scholar citation counts with other known citation databases such as Scopus [164] or the Thomson Reuters Web of Science [165] may have been beneficial since absolute citation counts have been shown to vary between databases [166]. However we were comparing relative citation counts between articles, and several studies have shown a strong correlation between Google Scholar citations counts and the Thomson Reuters Web of Science citation counts [167–169]. Furthermore, Google Scholar is arguably more comprehensive than other citation databases in certain fields [170,171]. Another limitation was that our calculation of citation rate, by dividing the total number of citations by time since publication, assumes that the citation frequency is independent of the time since publication. Given the difficulty in predicting the time course of citations, which can vary considerably over time between articles and depend on multiple factors including the article topic and the journal of publication, this could introduce a source of bias in our analysis [172–174]. However we felt that our calculated citation rate based on the number of citations over a three to seven year period following publication was adequate and that any bias is likely to apply evenly over all studies, thus minimizing the impact on our study conclusions. Furthermore, the interface of Google Scholar and other citation indexes do not allow for practical extraction of monthly citation information.

Several additional limitations outlined and addressed by Tunis et al. [25] are applicable to our study: the assessment of journals was not blinded to the journal or time of publication, our search was limited to radiology journals with high IF and thus does not represent the totality of the radiology literature, the selection of impact factor threshold was somewhat arbitrary (and was chosen as a practical means to result in a reasonable number of articles to review), and finally our interobserver agreement was only moderate. We believe that our moderate interobserver agreement was due to many items being flagged as unclear by one reviewer to be discussed with the other.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of SR & MA published in high impact radiology journals with citation rate, which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF. Although citation counts took on a wide range of values for a particular AMSTAR and PRISMA score, this study provides statistical evidence against there being “no relationship” with study quality and completeness and post-publication citations. This reinforces the importance of complete reporting and following publishing guidelines for authors of SR and MA, and might encourage more journals to endorse these guidelines.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. PRISMA flowchart.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.s001

(PDF)

S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.s002

(DOC)

S2 Table. List of included articles with total PRISMA and AMSTAR results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.s003

(DOC)

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MM CvdP WP AT RH. Performed the experiments: CvdP WP AT RH. Analyzed the data: MM CvdP WP. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CvdP AT RH. Wrote the paper: MM CvdP WP AT RH.

References

  1. 1. Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122: 108–111. pmid:14385826
  2. 2. Casadevall A, Fang FC (2014) Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio 5: e00064–00014. pmid:24643863
  3. 3. Zupanc GK (2014) Impact beyond the impact factor. Journal of Comparative Physiology A-Sensory Neural & Behavioral Physiology 200: 113–116.
  4. 4. Garfield E (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. Cmaj 161: 979–980. pmid:10551195
  5. 5. Willis DL, Bahler CD, Neuberger MM, Dahm P (2011) Predictors of citations in the urological literature. [Review]. BJU International 107: 1876–1880. pmid:21332629
  6. 6. Okike K, Kocher MS, Torpey JL, Nwachukwu BU, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M (2011) Level of evidence and conflict of interest disclosure associated with higher citation rates in orthopedics. [Review]. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 331–338. pmid:20947295
  7. 7. Nieminen P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M (2006) The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6.
  8. 8. Nieminen P, Rucker G, Miettunen J, Carpenter J, Schumacher M (2007) Statistically significant papers in psychiatry were cited more often than others. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60: 939–946. pmid:17689810
  9. 9. 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: 655–657. pmid:18292132
  10. 10. Kressel HY (2014) Beyond the impact factor: enhancing the impact of imaging research published in Radiology. Radiology 270: 3–6. pmid:24354368
  11. 11. Sardanelli F, Sconfienza LM (2013) Declining impact factor of radiologic journals: a matter for debate. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 201: W391–393. pmid:23971469
  12. 12. Sundaram M, Hodler J, Rosenthal DI (2012) On the relevance of the Impact Factor and other factors. Skeletal Radiology 41: 125–126. pmid:22170183
  13. 13. Aydingoz U (2010) Ways to improve a journal's impact factor in the online publication era. Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology 16: 255–256.
  14. 14. Shanta A, Pradhan AS, Sharma SD (2013) Impact factor of a scientific journal: Is it a measure of quality of research? Journal of Medical Physics 38: 155–157. pmid:24672148
  15. 15. Dimitrov JD, Kaveri SV, Bayry J (2010) Metrics: journal's impact factor skewed by a single paper. Nature 466: 179. pmid:20613820
  16. 16. Royle P, Kandala NB, Barnard K, Waugh N (2013) Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Syst Rev 2: 74. pmid:24028376
  17. 17. Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Michalopoulos A, Rodopoulou SP, Batsiou MA, Karageorgopoulos DE (2010) Comparison of the distribution of citations received by articles published in high, moderate, and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine. Internal Medicine Journal 40: 587–591. pmid:20718883
  18. 18. Halligan S, Altman DG (2007) Evidence-based Practice in Radiology: Steps 3 and 4—Appraise and Apply Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Radiology 243: 13–27. pmid:17392245
  19. 19. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman JL, Ewigman B, et al. (2004) Simplifying the language of evidence to improve patient care: Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in medical literature. [Review] [26 refs]. Journal of Family Practice 53: 111–120. pmid:14764293
  20. 20. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ (1995) Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.[Erratum appears in JAMA 1996 Apr 24;275(16):1232]. JAMA 274: 1800–1804. pmid:7500513
  21. 21. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, Avezova R, Kossan G, Chew L, et al. (2010) From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance. The open dentistry journal: 84–91. pmid:21088686
  22. 22. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7: 10. pmid:17302989
  23. 23. Vandenbroucke JP (2009) STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK… and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol 62: 594–596. pmid:19181482
  24. 24. Moher D, Altman DG, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J (2011) PRISMA statement. Epidemiology 22: 128; author reply 128. pmid:21150360
  25. 25. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, 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: 413–426. pmid:23824992
  26. 26. Kodumuri P, Ollivere B, Holley J, Moran CG (2014) The impact factor of a journal is a poor measure of the clinical relevance of its papers. Bone & Joint Journal 96-B: 414–419.
  27. 27. Filion KB, Pless IB (2008) Factors related to the frequency of citation of epidemiologic publications. Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 5.
  28. 28. Kulkarni AV, Busse JW, Shams I (2007) Characteristics associated with citation rate of the medical literature. PLoS ONE 2: e403. pmid:17476325
  29. 29. Jacoby W (2000) Loess: a nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting relationships between variables. Electoral Studies 19: 577–613.
  30. 30. Kwee TC, Kwee RM (2007) MR angiography in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroradiology 49: 703–713. pmid:17646977
  31. 31. Heijmink SWTPJ, Barentsz JO (2007) Contrast-enhanced versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate cancer detection: an overview of techniques and a systematic review. European Journal of Radiology 63: 310–316. pmid:17719734
  32. 32. Vanhoenacker PK, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Van Heste R, Decramer I, Van Hoe LR, Wijns W, et al. (2007) Diagnostic performance of multidetector CT angiography for assessment of coronary artery disease: meta-analysis. Radiology 244: 419–428. pmid:17641365
  33. 33. Autti T, Joensuu R, Aberg L (2007) Decreased T2 signal in the thalami may be a sign of lysosomal storage disease. Neuroradiology 49: 571–578. pmid:17334752
  34. 34. Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J (2007) Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. European Journal of Radiology 62: 328–334. pmid:17433597
  35. 35. Joshi U, Raijmakers PGHM, Riphagen II, Teule GJJ, van Lingen A, Hoekstra OS (2007) Attenuation-corrected vs. nonattenuation-corrected 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography in oncology: a systematic review. Molecular Imaging & Biology 9: 99–105.
  36. 36. Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr., Huda W (2007) Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 25: 900–909. pmid:17457809
  37. 37. van Eerde AM, Meutgeert MH, de Jong TPVM, Giltay JC (2007) Vesico-ureteral reflux in children with prenatally detected hydronephrosis: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 29: 463–469.
  38. 38. Williams GJ, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Karplus TE, Yung W, Hodson EM, et al. (2007) Comparative accuracy of renal duplex sonographic parameters in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: paired and unpaired analysis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 188: 798–811. pmid:17312071
  39. 39. Sampson FC, Goodacre SW, Thomas SM, van Beek EJR (2007) The accuracy of MRI in diagnosis of suspected deep vein thrombosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. European Radiology 17: 175–181. pmid:16628439
  40. 40. Medina LS, Bernal B, Ruiz J (2007) Role of functional MR in determining language dominance in epilepsy and nonepilepsy populations: a Bayesian analysis. Radiology 242: 94–100. pmid:17185662
  41. 41. Pakos EE, Trikalinos TA, Fotopoulos AD, Ioannidis JPA (2007) Prosthesis infection: diagnosis after total joint arthroplasty with antigranulocyte scintigraphy with 99mTc-labeled monoclonal antibodies—a meta-analysis. Radiology 242: 101–108. pmid:17090716
  42. 42. Wijers SC, Boelens JJ, Raphael MF, Beek FJ, de Jong PA (2011) Does high-resolution CT has diagnostic value in patients presenting with respiratory symptoms after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation? European Journal of Radiology 80: e536–543. pmid:21292416
  43. 43. Dong M-j, Zhao K, Liu Z-f, Wang G-l, Yang S-y, Zhou GJ (2011) A meta-analysis of the value of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/PET-CT in the evaluation of fever of unknown origin. European Journal of Radiology 80: 834–844. pmid:21131151
  44. 44. de Vasconcelos Sobreira Guedes B, da Rocha AJ, Gama HPP, da Silva CJ (2011) Dural metastases from prostate carcinoma: a systematic review of the literature apropos of six patients. European Journal of Radiology 80: 236–240. pmid:20619564
  45. 45. Qu X, Huang X, Wu L, Huang G, Ping X, Yan W (2011) Comparison of virtual cystoscopy and ultrasonography for bladder cancer detection: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 80: 188–197. pmid:20452159
  46. 46. Wu L, Cao Y, Liao C, Huang J, Gao F (2011) Diagnostic performance of USPIO-enhanced MRI for lymph-node metastases in different body regions: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 80: 582–589. pmid:20047813
  47. 47. Yang H-L, Liu T, Wang X-M, Xu Y, Deng S-M (2011) Diagnosis of bone metastases: A meta-analysis comparing 18FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy. European Radiology 21: 2604–2617. pmid:21887484
  48. 48. Bertot LC, Sato M, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Koike K (2011) Mortality and complication rates of percutaneous ablative techniques for the treatment of liver tumors: a systematic review. European Radiology 21: 2584–2596. pmid:21858539
  49. 49. Robertson C, Ragupathy SKA, Boachie C, Fraser C, Heys SD, Maclennan G, et al. (2011) Surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer: a systematic review. European Radiology 21: 2484–2491. pmid:21833567
  50. 50. McInnes MDF, Kielar AZ, Macdonald DB (2011) Percutaneous image-guided biopsy of the spleen: systematic review and meta-analysis of the complication rate and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 260: 699–708. pmid:21693659
  51. 51. Heinrich A, Szostek A, Nees F, Meyer P, Semmler W, Flor H (2011) Effects of static magnetic fields on cognition, vital signs, and sensory perception: a meta-analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 34: 758–763. pmid:21751291
  52. 52. Jeve Y, Rana R, Bhide A, Thangaratinam S (2011) Accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound in the diagnosis of early embryonic demise: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 38: 489–496.
  53. 53. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ (2011) Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 38: 371–382.
  54. 54. Bodily KD, Cloft HJ, Lanzino G, Fiorella DJ, White PM, Kallmes DF (2011) Stent-assisted coiling in acutely ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 32: 1232–1236. pmid:21546464
  55. 55. Dym RJ, Burns J, Freeman K, Lipton ML (2011) Is functional MR imaging assessment of hemispheric language dominance as good as the Wada test?: a meta-analysis. Radiology 261: 446–455. pmid:21803921
  56. 56. Salvesen KA (2011) Ultrasound in pregnancy and non-right handedness: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 38: 267–271.
  57. 57. de Haan MC, van Gelder RE, Graser A, Bipat S, Stoker J (2011) Diagnostic value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic screening population: a meta-analysis. European Radiology 21: 1747–1763. pmid:21455818
  58. 58. Dorrius MD, der Weide MCJ-v, van Ooijen PMA, Pijnappel RM, Oudkerk M (2011) Computer-aided detection in breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Radiology 21: 1600–1608. pmid:21404134
  59. 59. Lim AC, Hegeman MA, Huis In 'T Veld MA, Opmeer BC, Bruinse HW, Mol BW (2011) Cervical length measurement for the prediction of preterm birth in multiple pregnancies: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 38: 10–17.
  60. 60. Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, Marinovich ML, French JR, Macaskill P, et al. (2011) Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology 260: 119–128. pmid:21493791
  61. 61. Wu L-M, Gu H-Y, Zheng J, Xu X, Lin L-H, Deng X, et al. (2011) Diagnostic value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 34: 128–135. pmid:21618333
  62. 62. Kunadian V, Zaman A, Spyridopoulos I, Qiu W (2011) Sodium bicarbonate for the prevention of contrast induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of published clinical trials. European Journal of Radiology 79: 48–55. pmid:20074886
  63. 63. Pinto A, Acampora C, Pinto F, Kourdioukova E, Romano L, Verstraete K (2011) Learning from diagnostic errors: a good way to improve education in radiology. European Journal of Radiology 78: 372–376. pmid:21255952
  64. 64. Krishan S, Panditaratne N, Verma R, Robertson R (2011) Incremental value of CT venography combined with pulmonary CT angiography for the detection of thromboembolic disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 196: 1065–1072. pmid:21512072
  65. 65. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R (2011) Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 259: 393–405. pmid:21415247
  66. 66. Tang S, Huang G, Liu J, Liu T, Treven L, Song S, et al. (2011) Usefulness of 18F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and EUS in diagnosing primary pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 78: 142–150. pmid:19854016
  67. 67. Boland GWL, Dwamena BA, Jagtiani Sangwaiya M, Goehler AG, Blake MA, Hahn PF, et al. (2011) Characterization of adrenal masses by using FDG PET: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. Radiology 259: 117–126. pmid:21330566
  68. 68. Smith TO, Hilton G, Toms AP, Donell ST, Hing CB (2011) The diagnostic accuracy of acetabular labral tears using magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography: a meta-analysis. European Radiology 21: 863–874. pmid:20859632
  69. 69. Hudelist G, English J, Thomas AE, Tinelli A, Singer CF, Keckstein J (2011) Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for non-invasive diagnosis of bowel endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 37: 257–263.
  70. 70. Torp-Pedersen S, Bartels EM, Wilhjelm J, Bliddal H (2011) Articular cartilage thickness measured with US is not as easy as it appears: a systematic review of measurement techniques and image interpretation. Ultraschall in der Medizin 32: 54–61. pmid:20645223
  71. 71. Morris RK, Malin G, Robson SC, Kleijnen J, Zamora J, Khan KS (2011) Fetal umbilical artery Doppler to predict compromise of fetal/neonatal wellbeing in a high-risk population: systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 37: 135–142.
  72. 72. Westerlaan HE, van Dijk JMC, Jansen-van der Weide MC, de Groot JC, Groen RJM, Mooij JJ, et al. (2011) Intracranial aneurysms in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: CT angiography as a primary examination tool for diagnosis—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 258: 134–145. pmid:20935079
  73. 73. Bohte AE, van Werven JR, Bipat S, Stoker J (2011) The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis. European Radiology 21: 87–97. pmid:20680289
  74. 74. Greenberg ED, Gold R, Reichman M, John M, Ivanidze J, Edwards AM, et al. (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of CT angiography and CT perfusion for cerebral vasospasm: a meta-analysis. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 31: 1853–1860. pmid:20884748
  75. 75. Niekel MC, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiology 257: 674–684. pmid:20829538
  76. 76. Alomari AI, Orbach DB, Mulliken JB, Bisdorff A, Fishman SJ, Norbash A, et al. (2010) Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome and spinal arteriovenous malformations: an erroneous association. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 31: 1608–1612. pmid:20651014
  77. 77. Krille L, Hammer GP, Merzenich H, Zeeb H (2010) Systematic review on physician's knowledge about radiation doses and radiation risks of computed tomography. European Journal of Radiology 76: 36–41. pmid:20837382
  78. 78. de Zwart IM, de Roos A (2010) MRI for the evaluation of gastric physiology. European Radiology 20: 2609–2616. pmid:20585784
  79. 79. Jansen-van der Weide MC, Greuter MJW, Jansen L, Oosterwijk JC, Pijnappel RM, de Bock GH (2010) Exposure to low-dose radiation and the risk of breast cancer among women with a familial or genetic predisposition: a meta-analysis. European Radiology 20: 2547–2556. pmid:20582702
  80. 80. Naggara ON, White PM, Guilbert F, Roy D, Weill A, Raymond J (2010) Endovascular treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on safety and efficacy. Radiology 256: 887–897. pmid:20634431
  81. 81. Li Y, Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M (2010) A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography. European Journal of Radiology 74: e122–131. pmid:19482454
  82. 82. Dave M, Elmunzer BJ, Dwamena BA, Higgins PDR (2010) Primary sclerosing cholangitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 256: 387–396. pmid:20656832
  83. 83. Thayyil S, Chandrasekaran M, Chitty LS, Wade A, Skordis-Worrall J, Bennett-Britton I, et al. (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, children and adults: a systematic review. European Journal of Radiology 75: e142–148. pmid:19910149
  84. 84. Xia D, Jing J, Shen H, Wu J (2010) Value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images for discrimination of focal benign and malignant hepatic lesions: a meta-analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 32: 130–137. pmid:20578019
  85. 85. Menke J (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector CT in acute mesenteric ischemia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 256: 93–101. pmid:20574087
  86. 86. Hamon M, Fau G, Nee G, Ehtisham J, Morello R, Hamon M (2010) Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 12: 29. pmid:20482819
  87. 87. Yuan Y, Chen X-S, Liu S-Y, Shen K-W (2010) Accuracy of MRI in prediction of pathologic complete remission in breast cancer after preoperative therapy: a meta-analysis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 195: 260–268. pmid:20566826
  88. 88. Mullassery D, Ba'ath ME, Jesudason EC, Losty PD (2010) Value of liver herniation in prediction of outcome in fetal congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 35: 609–614.
  89. 89. Oba Y, Zaza T (2010) Abandoning daily routine chest radiography in the intensive care unit: meta-analysis. Radiology 255: 386–395. pmid:20413752
  90. 90. Maarse W, Berge SJ, Pistorius L, van Barneveld T, Kon M, Breugem C, et al. (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound in detecting prenatal cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 35: 495–502.
  91. 91. Zijta FM, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Magnetic resonance (MR) colonography in the detection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review of prospective studies. European Radiology 20: 1031–1046. pmid:19936754
  92. 92. Bouzeghrane F, Naggara O, Kallmes DF, Berenstein A, Raymond J; International Consortium of Neuroendovascular Centres (2010) In vivo experimental intracranial aneurysm models: a systematic review. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 31: 418–423. pmid:19875466
  93. 93. Kwee RM (2010) Prediction of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal cancer with use of 18F FDG PET: a systematic review. Radiology 254: 707–717. pmid:20177086
  94. 94. Chlapoutakis K, Theocharopoulos N, Yarmenitis S, Damilakis J (2010) Performance of computed tomographic urography in diagnosis of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma, in patients presenting with hematuria: Systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 73: 334–338. pmid:19058939
  95. 95. Sun Z, Almutairi AMD (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of 64 multislice CT angiography in the assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 73: 266–273. pmid:19056191
  96. 96. Dani KA, Muir KW (2010) Do iodinated contrast agents impair fibrinolysis in acute stroke? A systematic review. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 31: 170–174. pmid:19749221
  97. 97. Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou S, Kavvadias A, Makrydimas G (2010) Transvaginal cervical length measurement for prediction of preterm birth in women with threatened preterm labor: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 35: 54–64.
  98. 98. Floriani I, Torri V, Rulli E, Garavaglia D, Compagnoni A, Salvolini L, et al. (2010) Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31: 19–31. pmid:20027569
  99. 99. Goergen SK, Rumbold G, Compton G, Harris C (2010) Systematic review of current guidelines, and their evidence base, on risk of lactic acidosis after administration of contrast medium for patients receiving metformin. Radiology 254: 261–269. pmid:20032157
  100. 100. Mazhar SM, Shiehmorteza M, Kohl CA, Middleton MS, Sirlin CB (2009) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in liver disease: a systematic review. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 30: 1313–1322. pmid:19937937
  101. 101. Scholing M, Saltzherr TP, Fung Kon Jin PHP, Ponsen KJ, Reitsma JB, Lameris JS, et al. (2009) The value of postmortem computed tomography as an alternative for autopsy in trauma victims: a systematic review. European Radiology 19: 2333–2341. pmid:19458952
  102. 102. Provenzale JM, Sarikaya B (2009) Comparison of test performance characteristics of MRI, MR angiography, and CT angiography in the diagnosis of carotid and vertebral artery dissection: a review of the medical literature. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 193: 1167–1174. pmid:19770343
  103. 103. Springer I, Dewey M (2009) Comparison of multislice computed tomography with intravascular ultrasound for detection and characterization of coronary artery plaques: a systematic review. European Journal of Radiology 71: 275–282. pmid:18586427
  104. 104. Menke J (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques. European Radiology 19: 2204–2216. pmid:19399505
  105. 105. Goodman CS, Hur JY, Adajar MA, Coulam CH (2009) How well does CT predict the need for laparotomy in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating abdominal injury? A review and meta-analysis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 193: 432–437. pmid:19620440
  106. 106. Gu P, Pan L-L, Wu S-Q, Sun L, Huang G (2009) CA 125, PET alone, PET-CT, CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 71: 164–174. pmid:18378417
  107. 107. Kranz PG, Eastwood JD (2009) Does diffusion-weighted imaging represent the ischemic core? An evidence-based systematic review. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 30: 1206–1212. pmid:19357385
  108. 108. Warren R, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Black R, Houssami N (2009) Technical aspects of breast MRI—do they affect outcomes? European Radiology 19: 1629–1638. pmid:19247664
  109. 109. de Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN (2009) Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 192: 1701–1707. pmid:19457838
  110. 110. Horsthuis K, Bipat S, Stokkers PCF, Stoker J (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn's disease: a systematic review. European Radiology 19: 1450–1460. pmid:19189109
  111. 111. Torloni MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M, Betran AP, Allen T, Gonzalez R, et al. (2009) Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 33: 599–608.
  112. 112. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251: 347–358. pmid:19401569
  113. 113. Miller E, Uleryk E, Doria AS (2009) Evidence-based outcomes of studies addressing diagnostic accuracy of MRI of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 192: 1209–1218. pmid:19380543
  114. 114. Niemann T, Egelhof T, Bongartz G (2009) Transthoracic sonography for the detection of pulmonary embolism—a meta-analysis. Ultraschall in der Medizin 30: 150–156. pmid:19253205
  115. 115. Sun Z, Davidson R, Lin CH (2009) Multi-detector row CT angiography in the assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a systematic review. European Journal of Radiology 69: 489–495. pmid:18162351
  116. 116. Vente MAD, Wondergem M, van der Tweel I, van den Bosch MAAJ, Zonnenberg BA, Lam MG, et al. (2009) Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolization for the treatment of liver malignancies: a structured meta-analysis. European Radiology 19: 951–959. pmid:18989675
  117. 117. Yuan Y, Gu ZX, Wei WS (2009) Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography, single-photon emission tomography, and structural MR imaging for prediction of rapid conversion to Alzheimer disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 30: 404–410. pmid:19001534
  118. 118. White PM, Raymond J (2009) Endovascular coiling of cerebral aneurysms using "bioactive" or coated-coil technologies: a systematic review of the literature. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 30: 219–226. pmid:18842754
  119. 119. Kwee TC, Kwee RM (2009) Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. European Radiology 19: 731–744. pmid:18925401
  120. 120. Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, Van Der Post JA, Mol BW (2009) Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 33: 76–84.
  121. 121. Heinrich MC, Haberle L, Muller V, Bautz W, Uder M (2009) Nephrotoxicity of iso-osmolar iodixanol compared with nonionic low-osmolar contrast media: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Radiology 250: 68–86. pmid:19092091
  122. 122. Gaitini DE, Brenner B (2008) Do we need a cancer screening in patients with idiopathic deep vein thrombosis? Ultraschall in der Medizin 29 Suppl 5: 220–225. pmid:19177286
  123. 123. Meijer AB, O YL, Geleijns J, Kroft LJM (2008) Meta-analysis of 40- and 64-MDCT angiography for assessing coronary artery stenosis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 191: 1667–1675. pmid:19020234
  124. 124. Krug B, Crott R, Lonneux M, Baurain J-F, Pirson A-S, Vander Borght T (2008) Role of PET in the initial staging of cutaneous malignant melanoma: systematic review. Radiology 249: 836–844. pmid:19011184
  125. 125. Wiesmann M, Schopf V, Jansen O, Bruckmann H (2008) Stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis: meta-analysis of randomized trial data. European Radiology 18: 2956–2966. pmid:18654784
  126. 126. Shah QA, Zeeshan Memon M, Vazquez G, Suri MFK, Hussein HM, Mohammad YM, et al. (2008) Clinical and radiological outcomes of acute ischemic stroke patients without angiographic occlusion on digital subtraction angiogram. A pooled analysis of case series. Neuroradiology 50: 963–968. pmid:18766335
  127. 127. Lameris W, van Randen A, Bipat S, Bossuyt PMM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J (2008) Graded compression ultrasonography and computed tomography in acute colonic diverticulitis: meta-analysis of test accuracy. European Radiology 18: 2498–2511. pmid:18523784
  128. 128. Shapiro M, Babb J, Becske T, Nelson PK (2008) Safety and efficacy of adjunctive balloon remodeling during endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a literature review. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 29: 1777–1781. pmid:18719039
  129. 129. van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA (2008) Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology 249: 97–106. pmid:18682583
  130. 130. Provenzale JM, Shah K, Patel U, McCrory DC (2008) Systematic review of CT and MR perfusion imaging for assessment of acute cerebrovascular disease. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 29: 1476–1482. pmid:18583410
  131. 131. Cronin P, Dwamena BA, Kelly AM, Bernstein SJ, Carlos RC (2008) Solitary pulmonary nodules and masses: a meta-analysis of the diagnostic utility of alternative imaging tests. European Radiology 18: 1840–1856. pmid:18607593
  132. 132. Clarke M (2008) Systematic review of reviews of risk factors for intracranial aneurysms. Neuroradiology 50: 653–664. pmid:18560819
  133. 133. Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G (2008) Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 191: 396–401. pmid:18647908
  134. 134. Cahir JG, Toms AP (2008) Regional migratory osteoporosis. European Journal of Radiology 67: 2–10. pmid:18355999
  135. 135. Sun Z, Lin C, Davidson R, Dong C, Liao Y (2008) Diagnostic value of 64-slice CT angiography in coronary artery disease: a systematic review. European Journal of Radiology 67: 78–84. pmid:17766073
  136. 136. Seror P (2008) Sonography and electrodiagnosis in carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis, an analysis of the literature. European Journal of Radiology 67: 146–152. pmid:17669612
  137. 137. Hamon M, Lepage O, Malagutti P, Riddell JW, Morello R, Agostini D, et al. (2008) Diagnostic performance of 16- and 64-section spiral CT for coronary artery bypass graft assessment: meta-analysis. Radiology 247: 679–686. pmid:18403629
  138. 138. Crane JMG, Hutchens D (2008) Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length to predict preterm birth in asymptomatic women at increased risk: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 31: 579–587.
  139. 139. 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: 64–79. pmid:18372465
  140. 140. Chao AS, Chao A, Wang TH, Chang YC, Chang YL, Hsieh CC, et al. (2008) Outcome of antenatally diagnosed cardiac rhabdomyoma: case series and a meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 31: 289–295.
  141. 141. Achten E, Deblaere K (2008) Health technology assessment on the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and clinically isolated syndromes (CIS). European Journal of Radiology 65: 211–213. pmid:18164571
  142. 142. Cronin P, Dwamena BA, Kelly AM, Carlos RC (2008) Solitary pulmonary nodules: meta-analytic comparison of cross-sectional imaging modalities for diagnosis of malignancy. Radiology 246: 772–782. pmid:18235105
  143. 143. Janne d'Othee B, Siebert U, Cury R, Jadvar H, Dunn EJ, Hoffmann U (2008) A systematic review on diagnostic accuracy of CT-based detection of significant coronary artery disease. European Journal of Radiology 65: 449–461. pmid:17590554
  144. 144. Hamon M, Champ-Rigot L, Morello R, Riddell JW, Hamon M (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of in-stent coronary restenosis detection with multislice spiral computed tomography: a meta-analysis. European Radiology 18: 217–225. pmid:17763854
  145. 145. Robinson C, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Mallett S, Altman DG (2008) CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. Radiology 246: 426–433. pmid:18227540
  146. 146. Sosna J, Sella T, Sy O, Lavin PT, Eliahou R, Fraifeld S, et al. (2008) Critical analysis of the performance of double-contrast barium enema for detecting colorectal polyps > or = 6 mm in the era of CT colonography. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 190: 374–385. pmid:18212223
  147. 147. Fakhran S, Escott EJ (2008) Pineocytoma mimicking a pineal cyst on imaging: true diagnostic dilemma or a case of incomplete imaging? Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology 29: 159–163. pmid:17925371
  148. 148. Peters NHGM, Borel Rinkes IHM, Zuithoff NPA, Mali WPTM, Moons KGM, Peeters PH (2008) Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 246: 116–124. pmid:18024435
  149. 149. Hamon M, Morello R, Riddell JW, Hamon M (2007) Coronary arteries: diagnostic performance of 16- versus 64-section spiral CT compared with invasive coronary angiography—meta-analysis. Radiology 245: 720–731. pmid:17951354
  150. 150. Pakos EE, Koumoulis HD, Fotopoulos AD, Ioannidis JPA (2007) Osteomyelitis: antigranulocyte scintigraphy with 99mTC radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies for diagnosis—meta-analysis. Radiology 245: 732–741. pmid:17898328
  151. 151. Ba'ath ME, Jesudason EC, Losty PD (2007) How useful is the lung-to-head ratio in predicting outcome in the fetus with congenital diaphragmatic hernia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 30: 897–906.
  152. 152. de Bondt RBJ, Nelemans PJ, Hofman PAM, Casselman JW, Kremer B, van Engelshoven JM, et al. (2007) Detection of lymph node metastases in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis comparing US, USgFNAC, CT and MR imaging. European Journal of Radiology 64: 266–272. pmid:17391885
  153. 153. Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Kock MCJM, Hunink MGM (2007) Lower extremity arterial disease: multidetector CT angiography meta-analysis. Radiology 245: 433–439. pmid:17848679
  154. 154. Visser JJ, van Sambeek MRHM, Hamza TH, Hunink MGM, Bosch JL (2007) Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: endovascular repair versus open surgery—systematic review. Radiology 245: 122–129. pmid:17885185
  155. 155. Berghella V, Keeler SM, To MS, Althuisius SM, Rust OA (2010) Effectiveness of cerclage according to severity of cervical length shortening: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 35: 468–473.
  156. 156. Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, et al. (2011) Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 37: 6–14.
  157. 157. Morris RK, Ruano R, Kilby MD (2011) Effectiveness of fetal cystoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention for lower urinary tract obstruction: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 37: 629–637.
  158. 158. Roberts D, Gates S, Kilby M, Neilson JP (2008) Interventions for twin-twin transfusion syndrome: a Cochrane review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 31: 701–711.
  159. 159. Schlattmann P, Schuetz GM, Dewey M (2011) Influence of coronary artery disease prevalence on predictive values of coronary CT angiography: a meta-regression analysis. European Radiology 21: 1904–1913. pmid:21597986
  160. 160. Falagas ME, Zarkali A, Karageorgopoulos DE, Bardakas V, Mavros MN (2013) The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals. PLoS One 8: e49476. pmid:23405060
  161. 161. Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E (2002) Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 287: 2847–2850. pmid:12038930
  162. 162. Journal Citation Reports: The recognized authority for evaluating journals. Thomson Reuters. 2014. Available: http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/.
    • 163. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA (2002) Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. Jama 287: 2805–2808. pmid:12038918
    • 164. Elsevier (2014) Scopus. Database: www.scopus.com. Accessed 1 May 2014.
      • 165. Web of Science Database. Thomson Reuters. 2014. Available: www.thomsonreuters.com/thomson-reuters-web-of-science/.
        • 166. 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: 1092–1096. pmid:19738094
        • 167. Pauly D, Stergiou KI (2005) Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2005: 33–35.
        • 168. Mikki S (2010) Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences. Scientometrics 82: 321–331.
        • 169. Ebrahim NA, Salehi H, Embi MA, Danaee M, Mohammadjafari M, Zavvari A, et al. (2014) Equality of Google Scholar with Web of Science Citations: Case of Malaysian Engineering Highly Cited Papers. Modern Applied Science 8: 63–69.
        • 170. Harzing A-W (2013) A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics 94: 1057–1075.
        • 171. Meho LI, Yang K (2007) Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58: 2105–2125.
        • 172. Nieder C, Astner ST, Grosu AL (2012) Glioblastoma research 2006–2010: pattern of citation and systematic review of highly cited articles. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 114: 1207–1210. pmid:22516416
        • 173. Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA (2008) Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information. PLoS One 3: e1683. pmid:18301760
        • 174. Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA (2010) Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61: 1377–1385. pmid:21858251