ABSTRACT
Levels of evidence (LE) are established through a hierarchical classification of studies according to their design. At present, there are many heterogeneous LE classifications, and this hampers their applicability. Our study aims to identify which LE classification has the best interobserver concordance for radiology articles. For this purpose, an interobserver agreement analysis were performed on 105 original articles applying two NE scales (Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) y National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)). The inter-rater agreement of the LE assigned after reading the abstracts was good when using the OCEBM scale (Kâ¯=â¯0.679), and somewhat lower with the NHMRC (Kâ¯=â¯0.577 -moderate-). All differences were statistically significant (Pâ¯<â¯.000). So, in conclusion, of the two scales analysed (OCEBM and NHMRC), the OCEBM led to the strongest level of inter-rater agreement.
Subject(s)
Radiology , Humans , Observer VariationSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Career Mobility , Radiology , Fellowships and Scholarships , Health Programs and PlansABSTRACT
Bibliometric indicators have been devised to quantify scientific production and to try to evaluate its impact in the community. In general, bibliometric indicators can be classified according to whether the unit of analysis is the author (individual or group) or journal. The most widely used indicators for authors are those that measure an individual author's production, such as the Crown index or the h-index and its derivatives (e-index, h5-index, and the absolute or Ab-index, among others). The bibliometric indicators devised to try to evaluate journal quality are associated with Journal Citation Reports (e.g., impact factor, field-weighted citation impact, Eigenfactor, and article influence) or with Scopus (Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), and CiteScore). This article describes the main bibliometric indicators, explains how they are calculated, and discusses their advantages and limitations.
ABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Radiology/trends , Training Programs for Science Editors , Editorial Policies , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Peer Review, Research/methods , Systems for Evaluation of PublicationsABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Periodical , Peer Review/standards , Congresses as Topic , Radiology/education , Radiology/organization & administration , Societies, Medical/organization & administration , Societies, Medical/standardsABSTRACT
Los estudios del tracto digestivo con control fluoroscópico cada vez se practican con menos frecuencia debido a la introducción de otras técnicas de imagen como la tomografía computarizada o la resonancia magnética y la mayor accesibilidad a la endoscopia. No obstante, continúan apareciendo en muchas guías de práctica clínica y siguen teniendo indicaciones vigentes. Son exploraciones dinámicas y dependientes del operador, que requieren de un entrenamiento para obtener la máxima rentabilidad. Esta revisión pretende repasar la técnica y actualizar las indicaciones de esta modalidad de imagen (AU)
Fluoroscopic studies of the gastrointestinal tract are becoming increasing less common due to the introduction of other imaging techniques such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging and to the increased availability of endoscopy. Nevertheless, fluoroscopic studies of the gastrointestinal tract continue to appear in clinical guidelines and some of their indications are still valid. These studies are dynamic, operator-dependent examinations that require training to obtain the maximum diagnostic performance. This review aims to describe the technique and bring the indications for this imaging modality up to date (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Gastrointestinal Tract , Digestive System Diseases , Fluoroscopy/instrumentation , Esophageal Motility Disorders , Fluoroscopy/methods , Tomography, Emission-Computed/instrumentation , Endoscopy/instrumentation , Intestine, Small/pathology , Intestine, SmallABSTRACT
Fluoroscopic studies of the gastrointestinal tract are becoming increasing less common due to the introduction of other imaging techniques such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging and to the increased availability of endoscopy. Nevertheless, fluoroscopic studies of the gastrointestinal tract continue to appear in clinical guidelines and some of their indications are still valid. These studies are dynamic, operator-dependent examinations that require training to obtain the maximum diagnostic performance. This review aims to describe the technique and bring the indications for this imaging modality up to date.
Subject(s)
Gastrointestinal Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Upper Gastrointestinal Tract/diagnostic imaging , Fluoroscopy/methods , HumansABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Authorship/history , Authorship/standards , Authorship in Scientific Publications , Radiology/education , Radiology/history , Knowledge , Congresses as Topic/standards , Knowledge Management for Health ResearchABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Radiology/history , Radiology/methods , Periodicals as Topic/history , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Periodicals as Topic/trends , Authorship/history , Authorship/standards , Authorship in Scientific PublicationsABSTRACT
Clinical guidelines are documents to help professionals and patients select the best diagnostic or therapeutic option. Elaborating guidelines requires an efficient literature search and a critical evaluation of the articles found to select the most appropriate ones. After that, the recommendations are formulated and then must be externally evaluated before they can be disseminated. Even when the guidelines are very thorough and rigorous, it is important to know whether they fulfill all the methodological requisites before applying them. With this aim, various scales have been developed to critically appraise guidelines. Of these, the AGREE II instrument is currently the most widely used. This article explains the main steps in elaborating clinical guidelines and the main aspects that should be analyzed to know whether the guidelines are well written.
Subject(s)
Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Radiology , HumansABSTRACT
Los estudios observacionales analíticos aportan información muy relevante sobre la práctica clínica en la vida real, la historia natural de las enfermedades y la sospecha de causalidad. Además, son muy habituales en las revistas científicas. El objetivo de este artículo es revisar los conceptos principales para una lectura crítica de los artículos con diseño observacional en radiología. Se revisan las características exigibles a los artículos de buena calidad con diseño de casos y controles o estudios de cohortes. Se sigue una metodología de lectura crítica mediante el chequeo de los atributos que hay que valorar en cada tipo de artículo, estructurado en un listado de preguntas específicas. Se resaltan las principales características que confieren credibilidad y confianza al artículo evaluado. Se dota al lector de herramientas para el análisis crítico de los estudios observacionales publicados en revistas científicas (AU)
Analytical observational studies provide very important information about real-life clinical practice and the natural history of diseases and can suggest causality. Furthermore, they are very common in scientific journals. The aim of this article is to review the main concepts necessary for the critical reading of articles about radiological studies with observational designs. It reviews the characteristics that case-control and cohort studies must have to ensure high quality. It explains a method of critical reading that involves checking the attributes that should be evaluated in each type of article using a structured list of specific questions. It underlines the main characteristics that confer credibility and confidence on the article evaluated. Readers are provided with tools for the critical analysis of the observational studies published in scientific journals (AU)
Subject(s)
Observational Studies as Topic/methods , Biomedical Research/methods , Reading , Radiology/trends , Scientific and Technical Publications , Evidence-Based PracticeABSTRACT
Las guías de práctica clínica son documentos que ayudan a los profesionales y a los pacientes a seleccionar la mejor opción diagnóstica o terapéutica en cada momento. Para su elaboración es necesario realizar una búsqueda eficiente en la literatura y evaluar de forma crítica los artículos encontrados para seleccionar así los más adecuados. Posteriormente se formulan las recomendaciones y se procede a una evaluación externa de la guía antes de proceder a su difusión. Aunque su elaboración es muy minuciosa y rigurosa, es necesario saber si las guías cumplen todos los requisitos metodológicos antes de aplicarlas. Para ello se han desarrollado varias escalas de evaluación crítica, de las cuales, la denominada AGREE II es la más utilizada en la actualidad. En este artículo se exponen los principales pasos que se siguen en su elaboración, así como los principales aspectos que se deben analizar para saber si la guía está bien escrita (AU)
Clinical guidelines are documents to help professionals and patients select the best diagnostic or therapeutic option. Elaborating guidelines requires an efficient literature search and a critical evaluation of the articles found to select the most appropriate ones. After that, the recommendations are formulated and then must be externally evaluated before they can be disseminated. Even when the guidelines are very thorough and rigorous, it is important to know whether they fulfill all the methodological requisites before applying them. With this aim, various scales have been developed to critically appraise guidelines. Of these, the AGREE II instrument is currently the most widely used. This article explains the main steps in elaborating clinical guidelines and the main aspects that should be analyzed to know whether the guidelines are well written (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Radiology/trends , Diagnostic Imaging , Scientific and Technical Publications , Biomedical Research/methods , Reading , Evidence-Based PracticeABSTRACT
Analytical observational studies provide very important information about real-life clinical practice and the natural history of diseases and can suggest causality. Furthermore, they are very common in scientific journals. The aim of this article is to review the main concepts necessary for the critical reading of articles about radiological studies with observational designs. It reviews the characteristics that case-control and cohort studies must have to ensure high quality. It explains a method of critical reading that involves checking the attributes that should be evaluated in each type of article using a structured list of specific questions. It underlines the main characteristics that confer credibility and confidence on the article evaluated. Readers are provided with tools for the critical analysis of the observational studies published in scientific journals.
