American Journal Of Neuroradiology Research Articles

Quantitative Assessment of Rectal Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Combined Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy: Comparison of Three Methods of Positioning Region of Interest for ADC Measurements at Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging.

Quantitative Assessment of Rectal Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Combined Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy: Comparison of Three Methods of Positioning Region of Interest for ADC Measurements at Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging.

Glass Half Full.

In this issue, O'Connor and colleagues[1][1] report a study on the efficacy of double-blind peer review in the American Journal of Neuroradiology ( AJNR ). They found that 12.7% of reviewers thought or suspected that they knew the authors' identities. Most of the time when the reviewers thought they

Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.

Many scientific journals use double-blind peer review to minimize potential reviewer bias concerning publication recommendations. However, because neuroradiology is a relatively small subspecialty, this process may be limited by prior knowledge of the authors' work or associated institutions. We sought to investigate the efficacy of reviewer blinding and determine the impact that unblinding may have on manuscript acceptance. For manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) from January through June 2015, reviewers completed a brief anonymous questionnaire after submitting their evaluations, assessing whether they were familiar with the research or had knowledge of the authors or institutions from which the work originated. The response rate for 1079 questionnaires was 98.8%; 12.9% of reviewers knew or suspected that they knew authors, and 15.3% knew or suspected that they knew the associated institutions. Reviewers correctly identified the authors in 90.3% of cases and correctly stated the institutions in 86.8% of cases. Unblinding resulted from self-citation in 34.1% for both authorship and institutions. The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the authors was 57/137 (41.6%) and 262/929 (28.2%) when reviewers did not. The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the institutions was 60/163 (36.8%) and 259/903 (28.7%) when they did not. The Fisher exact test showed that author (P < .038) and institution (P < .039) familiarity was associated with greater manuscript acceptance. While the AJNR process of double-blind peer review minimizes reviewer bias, perceived knowledge of the author and institution is associated with a higher rate of manuscript acceptance.

Bibliometric Analysis of Manuscript Title Characteristics Associated With Higher Citation Numbers: A Comparison of Three Major Radiology Journals, AJNR, AJR, and Radiology

Our purpose was to determine if associations exist between titles characteristics and citation numbers in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR), and American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR). This retrospective study is Institutional Review Board exempt. We searched Web of Science for all original research and review articles in Radiology, AJR, and AJNR between 2006 and 2012 and tabulated number of words in the title, presence of a colon symbol, and presence of an acronym. We used a Poisson regression model to evaluate the association between number of citations and title characteristics. We then used the Wald test to detect pairwise differences in the effect of title characteristics on number of citations among the 3 journals. Between 2006 and 2012, Radiology published 2662, AJR 3998, and AJNR 2581 original research and review articles. There was a citation number increase per title word increase of 1.6% for AJNR and 2.6% for AJR and decrease of 0.8% for Radiology. For all, P < 0.001. A title colon was associated with citation increases for AJNR (16%), Radiology (14%), and AJR (7.4%). Title acronym was associated with citation increases for AJNR (10%), Radiology (14%), and AJR (13.3%). All P < 0.001. AJR had greatest effect for number of words in title vs Radiology and AJNR (P < 0.001), AJNR for presence of colon vs Radiology (P < 0.001), and AJR for presence of acronym vs AJNR (P = 0.028). Title characteristics investigated here showed a strong association with higher citation numbers in Radiology, AJR, and AJNR.

Bradford's law: identification of the core journals for neurosurgery and its subspecialties.

Bradford's law describes the scatter of citations for a given subject or field. It can be used to identify the most highly cited journals for a field or subject. The objective of this study was to use currently accepted formulations of Bradford's law to identify core journals of neurosurgery and neurosurgical subspecialties. All original research publications from 2009 to 2013 were analyzed for the top 25 North American academic neurosurgeons from each subspecialty. The top 25 were chosen from a ranked career h-index list identified from previous studies. Egghe's formulation and the verbal formulation of Bradford's law were applied to create specific citation density zones and identify the core journals for each subspecialty. The databases were then combined to identify the core journals for all of academic neurosurgery. Using Bradford's verbal law with 4 zone models, the authors were able to identify the core journals of neurosurgery and its subspecialties. The journals found in the most highly cited first zone are presented here as the core journals. For neurosurgery as a whole, the core included the following journals: Journal of Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery, Spine, Stroke, Neurology, American Journal of Neuroradiology, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, and New England Journal of Medicine. The core journals for each subspecialty are presented in the manuscript. Bradford's law can be used to identify the core journals of neurosurgery and its subspecialties. The core journals vary for each neurosurgical subspecialty, but Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery are among the core journals for each neurosurgical subspecialty.

Using Social Media to Share Your Radiology Research: How Effective Is a Blog Post?

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the volume of individuals who viewed online versions of research articles in 2 peer-reviewed radiology journals and a radiology blog promoted by social media. MethodsThe authors performed a retrospective study comparing online analytic logs of research articles in the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) and the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) and a blog posting on Radiopaedia.org from April 2013 to September 2014. All 3 articles addressed the topic of reporting incidental thyroid nodules detected on CT and MRI. The total page views for the research articles and the blog article were compared, and trends in page views were observed. Factors potentially affecting trends were an AJNR podcast and promotion of the blog article on the social media platforms Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter to followers of Radiopaedia.org in February 2014 and August 2014. ResultsThe total numbers of page views during the study period were 2,421 for the AJNR article and 3,064 for the AJR article. The Radiopaedia.org blog received 32,675 page views, which was 13.6 and 10.7 times greater than AJNR and AJR page views, respectively, and 6.0 times greater than both journal articles combined. Months with activity above average for the blog and the AJNR article coincided with promotion by Radiopaedia.org on social media. ConclusionsDissemination of scientific material on a radiology blog promoted on social media can substantially augment the reach of more traditional publication venues. Although peer-reviewed publication remains the most widely accepted measure of academic productivity, researchers in radiology should not ignore opportunities for increasing the impact of research findings via social media.

Evidence levels for neuroradiology articles: low agreement among raters.

Because evidence-based articles are difficult to recognize among the large volume of publications available, some journals have adopted evidence-based medicine criteria to classify their articles. Our purpose was to determine whether an evidence-based medicine classification used by a subspecialty-imaging journal allowed consistent categorization of levels of evidence among different raters. One hundred consecutive articles in the American Journal of Neuroradiology were classified as to their level of evidence by the 2 original manuscript reviewers, and their interobserver agreement was calculated. After publication, abstracts and titles were reprinted and independently ranked by 3 different radiologists at 2 different time points. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was calculated for these radiologists. The interobserver agreement between the original manuscript reviewers was -0.2283 (standard error = 0.0000; 95% CI, -0.2283 to -0.2283); among the 3 postpublication reviewers for the first evaluation, it was 0.1899 (standard error = 0.0383; 95% CI, 0.1149-0.2649); and for the second evaluation, performed 3 months later, it was 0.1145 (standard error = 0.0350; 95% CI, 0.0460-0.1831). The intraobserver agreement was 0.2344 (standard error = 0.0660; 95% CI, 0.1050-0.3639), 0.3826 (standard error = 0.0738; 95% CI, 0.2379-0.5272), and 0.6611 (standard error = 0.0656; 95% CI, 0.5325-0.7898) for the 3 postpublication evaluators, respectively. These results show no-to-fair interreviewer agreement and a tendency to slight intrareviewer agreement. Inconsistent use of evidence-based criteria by different raters limits their utility when attempting to classify neuroradiology-related articles.

Highly Cited Works in Radiology: The Top 100 Cited Articles in Radiologic Journals

The number of citations a publication receives can be used to show its impact on a field of study. It may indicate the educational interest in a given population or underline a perceived or real educational gap. This article identifies and characterizes the 100 top cited publications in radiologic journals as of May2013. All clinical radiologic journals listed by Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports in 2011 were identified. A total of 46 journals were identified, and all articles published within these journals were analyzed for citation counts. The top 100 highly cited articles were recorded. The most frequently cited radiologic articles appeared in 9 of the 46 journals. These included 59 articles in Radiology, 17 in Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 9 in the American Journal of Roentgenology, 5 in the British Journal of Radiology, 4 in Investigative Radiology, 2 in American Journal of Neuroradiology, 2 in European Radiology, 2 in Radiologic Clinics of North America, 1 in the Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, and 1 in Pediatric Radiology. The citation values ranged from 422 to 7506 with a mean of 751. Publication dates ranged from 1967 to 2006 with the 5-year period between 1986 and 1990 accounting for the largest percentage of articles. The most frequently studied radiologic modality was magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 28 articles), followed by vascular/interventional (19 articles) and nuclear medicine (13 articles). The central nervous system was the most frequently studied organ system (22 articles), followed by mixed organ systems (14 articles) and liver (12 articles). The top cited articles in radiologic journals span a wide range of imaging modalities, subspecialties, and organ systems. Topics that occurred frequently in the top 100 cited articles included contrast and radiopharmaceutical characterization, MRI of motion, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation in the liver and percutaneous vertebroplasty. We present a methodology that uses citation analysis to identify and characterize these articles. Its use may aid radiologists, academic organization, and editorial staff in determining areas of imaging interest or perceived educational gap. It also highlights the importance of including classic articles in current imaging education.

Counterpoint--Response to "In Memoriam: The Matrix Coil"

In this issue of the American Journal of Neuroradiology ( AJNR ), the Matrix and Platinum Science (MAPS) trial results are published.[1][1] The trial concluded that there was no superiority of the Matrix coil (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Michigan) over bare platinum coils. The MAPS investigators and sponsor

Est Modus in Rebus

In the July 2013 issue of the American Journal of Neuroradiology an editorial appeared, authored by Dr H.J. Cloft, entitled “Capitalism and Commodities: My Two Cents.”[1][1] In the editorial, Dr Cloft explains that nowadays “more that 20 years after the invention of the Guglielmi Detachable

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?

Purpose To evaluate whether completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals has changed since publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement; a secondary objective is to evaluate whether completeness of reporting (ie, PRISMA) is associated with study quality (ie, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR]). Materials and Methods Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in major radiology journals between January 2007 and December 2011 were identified by searching MEDLINE with the modified Montori method. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators and assessed for adherence to the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. The average results were analyzed to assess for change in mean score before and after PRISMA publication and to assess results over time; a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for any association between PRISMA and AMSTAR results. Results Included were 130 studies from 11 journals. Average PRISMA and AMSTAR results were 21.8 of 27 and 7.2 of 11, respectively. The average result was higher after publication of PRISMA, and PRISMA-reported items were 22.6 of 27 after publication of PRISMA versus 20.9 of 27 before publication of PRISMA; AMSTAR results were 7.7 of 11 after publication of PRISMA versus 6.7 of 11 before publication of PRISMA. There was a strong positive correlation (r = 0.86) between the PRISMA and AMSTAR results. There was high variability between journals. Radiology had the highest PRISMA reported items (24.7 of 27), and American Journal of Neuroradiology had the lowest (19.6 of 27). Two major areas for improvement include study protocol registration and assessment of risk of bias across studies (ie, publication bias). Conclusion In major radiology journal studies, there was modest improvement in completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, assessed by PRISMA, which was strongly associated with higher study quality, assessed by AMSTAR. © RSNA, 2013 Supplemental material: S1

ShouldAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologyCommentary Be Evidence-Based?

After the editorial alarmingly entitled “Death by Nondiagnosis: Why Emergent CT Angiography Should Not Be Done for Patients with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage”[1][1] in the American Journal of Neuroradiology ( AJNR ) in 2007, we were looking forward to an update in Dr Jayaraman's recent commentary

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?

To evaluate whether completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals has changed since publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement; a secondary objective is to evaluate whether completeness of reporting (ie, PRISMA) is associated with study quality (ie, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR]). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in major radiology journals between January 2007 and December 2011 were identified by searching MEDLINE with the modified Montori method. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators and assessed for adherence to the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. The average results were analyzed to assess for change in mean score before and after PRISMA publication and to assess results over time; a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for any association between PRISMA and AMSTAR results. Included were 130 studies from 11 journals. Average PRISMA and AMSTAR results were 21.8 of 27 and 7.2 of 11, respectively. The average result was higher after publication of PRISMA, and PRISMA-reported items were 22.6 of 27 after publication of PRISMA versus 20.9 of 27 before publication of PRISMA; AMSTAR results were 7.7 of 11 after publication of PRISMA versus 6.7 of 11 before publication of PRISMA. There was a strong positive correlation (r = 0.86) between the PRISMA and AMSTAR results. There was high variability between journals. Radiology had the highest PRISMA reported items (24.7 of 27), and American Journal of Neuroradiology had the lowest (19.6 of 27). Two major areas for improvement include study protocol registration and assessment of risk of bias across studies (ie, publication bias). In major radiology journal studies, there was modest improvement in completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, assessed by PRISMA, which was strongly associated with higher study quality, assessed by AMSTAR. http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13130273/-/DC1.

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Pituitary Gland

In this issue of the American Journal of Neuroradiology , you will find the article “Evaluation of Diffusivity in the Anterior Lobe of the Pituitary Gland: 3D Turbo Field Echo with Diffusion-Sensitized Driven-Equilibrium Preparation” by Hiwatashi et al.[1][1] I enjoyed reading this article and

Rehashing Trial Results Won't Help with Puzzling Aneurysms–Patients Need Best Care within a Contemporary Trial

We would like to air our concerns regarding 2 recent publications in the American Journal of Neuroradiology: a meta-analysis of coil embolization versus clipping for ruptured aneurysms[1][1] and the accompanying editorial entitled “Best Evidence: Comments on Meta-Analysis of Coiling versus

Does Stent-Assisted Coiling Still Have a Place in the Management of Intracranial Aneurysms?

The article by Chalouhi et al[1][1] in this issue of the American Journal of Neuroradiology is an interesting contribution to the debate about the present place of stent-assisted coiling (SAC) in the management of intracranial aneurysms. Endovascular treatment plays an important role in the

Trainees in Peer Review: Our Experience

The American Journal of Neuroradiology ( AJNR ) receives more than 1400 article submissions every year. When more than 2 years ago, we eliminated case reports, which accounted for between 25% and 35% of all submitted articles, we did not anticipate that this difference would be made up, almost

Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR: Importance of Reaching the Washout Phase

We read with great interest the recent study published in the American Journal of Neuroradiology on November 22, 2012, entitled “T1-Weighted Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Evaluation of Different Stages of Neurocysticercosis and Its Relationship with Serum MMP-9 Expression.”[1][1] In the

Neuroimaging of Dementias

![Figure][1] I would like to thank Mauricio Castillo, Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR ), for inviting me to be Guest Editor for the AJNR Special Collection, titled Neuroimaging of Dementias . There have been a significant progression of the number of studies

Training and Learning Curve in Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency Assessment

I read with interest the article entitled “Mystery of Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency: Identical Venographic and Ultrasound Findings in Patients with MS and Controls” by McAuliffe and Kermode[1][1] published on-line in January by the American Journal of Neuroradiology. I can,