Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.

BACKGROUND: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. STUDY TYPE: Meta-research. POPULATION: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included. ASSESSMENT: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts. DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Delayed motor learning in a 16p11.2 deletion mouse model of autism is rescued by locus coeruleus activation.

Children with autism spectrum disorder often exhibit delays in achieving motor developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and speech articulation. However, little is known about the neural mechanisms underlying motor-related deficits. Here, we reveal that mice with a syntenic deletion of the chromosome 16p11.2, a common copy number variation associated with autism spectrum disorder, also exhibit delayed motor learning without showing gross motor deficits. Using in vivo two-photon imaging in awake mice, we find that layer 2/3 excitatory neurons in the motor cortex of adult male 16p11.2-deletion mice show abnormally high activity during the initial phase of learning, and the process of learning-induced spine reorganization is prolonged. Pharmacogenetic activation of locus coeruleus noradrenergic neurons was sufficient to rescue the circuit deficits and the delayed motor learning in these mice. Our results unveil an unanticipated role of noradrenergic neuromodulation in improving the delayed motor learning in 16p11.2-deletion male mice.

Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research: evaluation of current practices.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this methodological review was to determine the extent to which comparative imaging systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) use primary studies with comparative or non-comparative designs. METHODS: MEDLINE was used to identify DTA systematic reviews published in imaging journals between January 2000 and May 2018. INCLUSION CRITERIA: systematic reviews comparing at least two index tests (one of which was imaging-based); review characteristics were extracted. Study design and other characteristics of primary studies included in the systematic reviews were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred three comparative imaging reviews were included; 11 (11%) included only comparative studies, 12 (11%) included only non-comparative primary studies, and 80 (78%) included both comparative and non-comparative primary studies. For reviews containing both comparative and non-comparative primary studies, the median proportion of non-comparative primary studies was 81% (IQR 57-90%). Of 92 reviews that included non-comparative primary studies, 86% did not recognize this as a limitation. Furthermore, among 4182 primary studies, 3438 (82%) were non-comparative and 744 (18%) were comparative in design. CONCLUSION: Most primary studies included in comparative imaging reviews are non-comparative in design and awareness of the risk of bias associated with this is low. This may lead to incorrect conclusions about the relative accuracy of diagnostic tests and be counter-productive for informing guidelines and funding decisions about imaging tests. KEY POINTS: • Few comparative accuracy imaging reviews include only primary studies with optimal comparative study designs. Among the rest, few recognize the risk of bias conferred from inclusion of primary studies with non-comparative designs. • The demand for accurate comparative accuracy data combined with minimal awareness of valid comparative study designs may lead to counter-productive research and inadequately supported clinical decisions for diagnostic tests. • Using comparative accuracy imaging reviews with a high risk of bias to inform guidelines and funding decisions may have detrimental impacts on patient care.