Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, 30 March 2015

Modified Kardashian index (MK-index): A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists

 


Modified Kardashian index (MK-index): A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists

Abstract:

This study propose a “Modified Kardashian index” (MK-index), a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s publication record and social media based on the Hall (2014) K-index. A direct comparison of numbers of citations on Google Scholar and Twitter followers, are used to measure the MK-Index.
















Modified Kardashian index (MK-index): A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists

Modified Kardashian index: A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists

Modified Kardashian index (MK-index): A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists



"Modified Kardashian index (MK-index): A measure of discrepant social m" by Nader Ale Ebrahim

Sunday, 29 March 2015

Search Result :: SPELL – Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library



Overview of the intellectual production of performance measurement in public management

ID: 34598
Source:
Revista de Administração Pública, v. 49, n. 2, p. 337-366, March-April, 2015. 30 page(s).

Keyword: bibliometric analysis, performance measurement, public management
Document type: Article (Portuguese)


Search Result :: SPELL – Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library

Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates?

Volume 10, Issue 3, 16 March 2015, Article number e0119892

Is quality and
completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation
rates?  (Article)


Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada




Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada





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. © 2015 van der Pol et al.


ISSN: 19326203

CODEN: POLNC
Source Type: Journal
Original language: English


DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119892
Document Type: Article
Publisher: Public Library of Science


Scopus - Document details

Overview of the intellectual production of performance measurement in public management

Volume 49, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 337-366

Overview of the intellectual production of performance measurement in public management  (Article)

[Panorama da produção intelectual sobre a medição de desempenho na gestão pública]

[Panorama de la producción intelectual de medición del desempeño en la gestión pública]

Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), Brazil




Abstract

In the context of changes in the public administration that aim to enhance government performance, this paper has the goal to present an overview from intellectual production on the field of performance measurement in public management between 1980 and February of 2013. In order to do it, it was applied a citation/co-citation bibliometric analysis using Sitkis, Netdraw and CiteSpace II softwares. The databases used in this analysis were ISI Web of Science (WoS) that reflects international research and SciELO that reflects Brazilian research. The study in WoS revealed the most important authors, journals, pairs of documents and research institutions. Moreover, the study based on SciELO identified that the literature about this field is dispersal. In general terms, the results show that performance measurement in public management is an emerging field. © 2015, Fundacao Getulio Vargas. All rights reserved.

Author keywords

Bibliometric analysis; Performance measurement; Public management


ISSN: 00347612
Source Type: Journal
Original language: Portuguese


DOI: 10.1590/0034-7612126126
Document Type: Article
Publisher: Fundacao Getulio Vargas


Scopus - Document details

dblp: Nader Ale Ebrahim



dblp: Nader Ale Ebrahim

Saturday, 28 March 2015

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

 Source: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119892

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

PLOS

  • Published: March 16, 2015
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119892

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.






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 [24].
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 [59]. More recently, there has been increased reference to journal IF in radiology publications [1013].


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 [1921].
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 [2224]. 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 [30158] (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
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.


doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.g001
thumbnail
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.


doi: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 [167169]. 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 [172174].
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.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.s001
(PDF)

S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892.s002
(DOC)

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

doi: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
    doi:
    10.1126/science.122.3159.108
  2. 2.
    Casadevall
    A, Fang FC (2014) Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania.
    mBio 5: e00064–00014. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00064-14. pmid:24643863
  3. 3.
    Zupanc
    GK (2014) Impact beyond the impact factor. Journal of Comparative
    Physiology A-Sensory Neural & Behavioral Physiology 200: 113–116.
    doi:
    10.1007/s00359-013-0863-1
  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.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10028.x. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.019.
    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.
    doi:
    10.1186/1471-2288-6-42
  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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.014
  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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39482.526713.BE. pmid:18292132
  10. 10.
    Kressel
    HY (2014) Beyond the impact factor: enhancing the impact of imaging
    research published in Radiology. Radiology 270: 3–6. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.13132314. 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. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10256. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00256-011-1342-9. 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.
    doi:
    10.4261/1305-3825.dir.4080-10.0
  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. doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.121191. pmid:24672148
  15. 15.
    Dimitrov
    JD, Kaveri SV, Bayry J (2010) Metrics: journal's impact factor skewed
    by a single paper. Nature 466: 179. doi: 10.1038/466179c.
    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. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-74. 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.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02247.x. 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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2431051823
  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
    doi:
    10.3122/jabfm.17.1.59
  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
    doi:
    10.1001/jama.274.22.1800
  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. doi: 10.2174/1874210601004020084. 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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009
  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. doi:
    10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.003. pmid:19181482
  24. 24.
    Moher
    D, Altman DG, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J (2011) PRISMA statement.
    Epidemiology 22: 128; author reply 128. doi:
    10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181fe7825. 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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130273. 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.
    doi:
    10.1302/0301-620x.96b3.32279
  27. 27.
    Filion
    KB, Pless IB (2008) Factors related to the frequency of citation of
    epidemiologic publications. Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations
    5.
    doi:
    10.1186/1742-5573-5-3
  28. 28.
    Kulkarni
    AV, Busse JW, Shams I (2007) Characteristics associated with citation
    rate of the medical literature. PLoS ONE 2: e403. pmid:17476325
    doi:
    10.1371/journal.pone.0000403
  29. 29.
    Jacoby
    W (2000) Loess: a nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting
    relationships between variables. Electoral Studies 19: 577–613.
    doi:
    10.1016/s0261-3794(99)00028-1
  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
    doi:
    10.1007/s00234-007-0266-5
  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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.027
  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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2442061218
  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
    doi:
    10.1007/s00234-007-0220-6
  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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.040
  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-positro​nemission tomography in
    oncology: a systematic review. Molecular Imaging & Biology 9:
    99–105.
    doi:
    10.1007/s11307-007-0076-5
  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
    doi:
    10.1002/jmri.20895
  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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.3975
  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
    doi:
    10.2214/ajr.06.0355
  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
    doi:
    10.1007/s00330-006-0178-5
  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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2421050677
  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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2421052011
  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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.037. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.018. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.06.007. 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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.04.003. 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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.11.027. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-011-2221-4. 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.
    doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2222-3. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-011-2226-z. 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. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.11110333. 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. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22720. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.10108
  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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.10056
  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. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2478.
    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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101344.
    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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.9055
  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.
    doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2104-8. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-011-2091-9. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.9013
  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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11102368. 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. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22608. 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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.12.015. 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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.028. 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. doi:
    10.2214/AJR.10.4745. 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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101887.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.026. 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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11100569. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1956-7. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.8858
  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. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245386. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.7767
  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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10092373. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5. 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. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2246. 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. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.10100729. 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. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2167. 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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.08.025. pmid:20837382
  78. 78.
    de
    Zwart IM, de Roos A (2010) MRI for the evaluation of gastric
    physiology. European Radiology 20: 2609–2616. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-010-1850-3. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-010-1839-y. 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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091982. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.069. 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. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.10091953. 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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.10.007. 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. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22211. 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.
    doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091938. 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. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-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. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3908. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.7586
  89. 89.
    Oba
    Y, Zaza T (2010) Abandoning daily routine chest radiography in the
    intensive care unit: meta-analysis. Radiology 255: 386–395. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.10090946. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.7472
  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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-009-1663-4. 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. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1853.
    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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09091324.
    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.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.10.026. 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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.10.025. 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. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1782. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.7457
  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. doi:
    10.1002/jmri.22010. 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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09090690. 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. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21983.
    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. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1440-4.
    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. doi:
    10.2214/AJR.08.1688. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.04.035. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-009-1403-9. 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. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1927. 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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.02.019. 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. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1547.
    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.
    doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1341-6. 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.
    doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1241. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-008-1287-0. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.6328
  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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2512081235.
    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. doi:
    10.2214/AJR.08.2304. 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. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1027856. 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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.030
  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. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1211-7. 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. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1357. 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. doi:
    10.3174/ajnr.A1324. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1194-4. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.6277
  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.
    doi: 10.1148/radiol.2501080833. 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. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1027994. 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. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.4022.
    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. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2493080240. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1077-8. 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.
    doi: 10.1007/s00234-008-0449-8. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1018-6. 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. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1216. 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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2483071652. 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. doi:
    10.3174/ajnr.A1161. 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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-008-0970-5. pmid:18607593
  132. 132.
    Clarke
    M (2008) Systematic review of reviews of risk factors for intracranial
    aneurysms. Neuroradiology 50: 653–664. doi: 10.1007/s00234-008-0411-9.
    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. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3414.
    pmid:18647908
  134. 134.
    Cahir
    JG, Toms AP (2008) Regional migratory osteoporosis. European Journal of
    Radiology 67: 2–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.01.051. 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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.07.014
  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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.017
  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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2473071132. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.5323
  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. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2471070611. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.5264
  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. doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.014. 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. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2463062148. 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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.05.003
  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
    doi:
    10.1007/s00330-007-0743-6
  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. doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2461070121. 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. doi:
    10.2214/AJR.07.2099. 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
    doi:
    10.3174/ajnr.a0750
  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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2461061298
  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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2453061899
  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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2452061877
  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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.5164
  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
    doi:
    10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.037
  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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2451061280
  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
    doi:
    10.1148/radiol.2451061204
  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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.7547
  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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.7754
  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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.8981
  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.
    doi:
    10.1002/uog.5328
  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. doi:
    10.1007/s00330-011-2142-2. 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.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049476. 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
    doi:
    10.1001/jama.287.21.2847
  162. 162.
    Journal Citation Reports: The recognized authority for evaluating journals. Thomson Reuters. 2014. Available: http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citati​on-reports/.
  163. 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
    doi:
    10.1001/jama.287.21.2805
  164. 164.
    Elsevier (2014) Scopus. Database: www.scopus.com. Accessed 1 May 2014.
  165. 165.
    Web of Science Database. Thomson Reuters. 2014. Available: www.thomsonreuters.com/thomson-reuters-w​eb-of-science/.
  166. 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. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307.
    pmid:19738094
  167. 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. 168.
    Mikki S (2010) Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences. Scientometrics 82: 321–331.
  169. 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.
    doi:
    10.5539/mas.v8n5p63
  170. 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. 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.
    doi:
    10.1002/asi.20677
  172. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2012.03.049.
    pmid:22516416
  173. 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.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001683. pmid:18301760
  174. 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
    doi:
    10.1002/asi.21335


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