Selective Citation Practices in Imaging Research: Are Diagnostic Accuracy Studies With Positive Titles and Conclusions Cited More Often?

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to examine the existence of selective citation practices in the imaging literature by assessing whether diagnostic accuracy studies with positive titles or conclusions are cited more frequently than those with negative (or neutral) titles or conclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. MEDLINE was searched for meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies published in imaging journals from January 2005 to April 2016. Primary studies from the meta-analyses were screened for eligibility. Titles and conclusions were classified independently in duplicate. A negative binomial regression analysis controlling for several confounding variables was performed to obtain regression coefficients; p values were obtained via likelihood ratio testing. RESULTS. A total of 995 primary studies were included. Fifty-one titles (5.1%) and 782 conclusions (78.6%) were positive or positive with qualifiers; 942 titles (94.7%) and 127 conclusions (12.8%) were neutral; and two titles (0.02%) and 86 conclusions (8.6%) were negative. Studies with positive, neutral, and negative titles were cited a mean of 0.66, 0.50, and 0.06 times per month. Studies with positive, neutral, and negative conclusions were cited a mean of 0.54, 0.42, and 0.34 times per month. Regression coefficients were 1.10 (95% CI, -0.08 to 2.20) and 0.91 (95% CI, -0.27 to 2.00) for positive and neutral titles, relative to negative titles. Regression coefficients were 0.19 (95% CI, 0.03-0.35) and 0.08 (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.27) for positive and neutral conclusions, relative to negative conclusions. Title and conclusion positivity demonstrated positive association with citation rate (p = 0.031 for both). CONCLUSION. Studies with positive titles or conclusions are cited more frequently in imaging diagnostic accuracy literature. This difference may contribute to overestimation of the accuracy of a test and, consequently, suboptimal patient outcomes.

[1]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published , 2020, European Radiology.

[2]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. , 2018, Radiology.

[3]  David Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement , 2018, JAMA.

[4]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Are Study and Journal Characteristics Reliable Indicators of "Truth" in Imaging Research? , 2017, Radiology.

[5]  D. Moher,et al.  Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[6]  M. Zeegers,et al.  Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. , 2017, Clinical chemistry.

[8]  Christopher W. Jones,et al.  Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: a cross-sectional analysis , 2016, Trials.

[9]  D. A. Korevaar,et al.  Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy in Imaging Journals: Analysis of Pooling Techniques and Their Effect on Summary Estimates of Diagnostic Accuracy. , 2016, Radiology.

[10]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Is There an Association between STARD Statement Adherence and Citation Rate? , 2016, Radiology.

[11]  L. Hooft,et al.  Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[12]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". , 2013, Radiology.

[13]  T. Perneger,et al.  Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  D. Fanelli.  “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences , 2010, PloS one.

[15]  Jean-François Etter,et al.  Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[16]  Steven A Greenberg,et al.  How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Martin Schumacher,et al.  Statistically significant papers in psychiatry were cited more often than others. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  Lucy Carter,et al.  A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[19]  U. Ravnskov,et al.  Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome. , 1992, BMJ.

[20]  K. Robinson,et al.  Biased and inadequate citation of prior research in reports of cardiovascular trials is a continuing source of waste in research. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  D. Fanelli.  Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries , 2011, Scientometrics.