Radiology Journals Research Articles

Understanding of Flow Allows Better Tumor Microsphere Coverage

In this issue of the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Miller et al (1) developed an in vitro platform that consisted of a hepatic arterial tree and a tumor vascular model to compare 2 different methods for the administration of yttrium-90 glass microspheres: conventional bolus delivery (BD) and dual-syringe delivery (DSD). The authors concluded that the latter resulted in a more uniform and deeper distribution of the microspheres in their platform, potentially portending more effective deposition in actual tumors.

Female Authorship Trends Among Articles About Artificial Intelligence in North American Radiology Journals.

Purpose: To examine trends in female authorship of peer-reviewed North American radiology articles centred around artificial intelligence (AI). Method: A bibliographic search was conducted for all AI-related articles published in four North American radiology journals. Collected data included the genders of the first and last (senior) authors, year and country. We compared the trends of female authorship using Pearson chi-square, Fisher exact tests and logistic regression models. Results: 453 articles met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 107 (22.3%) had a female first author and 97 (27.3%) had a female senior author. Female first authors were over three times more likely to publish with a female senior author. Among the four journals, the CARJ had the highest proportion of female senior authors at 45.5%. The only significant temporal trend identified was an increase over the years in female senior authors in Radiology. Twenty-four countries contributed to the included articles, with the largest contributors being the United States (n = 290) and Canada (n = 30). Of the countries contributing more than 15 articles, there were none with above 50% female authorship. Conclusions: Female authors are underrepresented in AI-related radiology literature. However, there has been an encouraging recent increase in female authorship in AI-related radiology articles trending towards significance. There is a great opportunity to improve female representation in AI with intentional mentorship and recruitment. We urge more platforms for female voices in radiology as AI becomes increasingly integrated into the radiology community.

Impact Factor JUMPS After the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Journals.

One of the most widely applied methods for evaluating a research paper's quality is the impact factor (IF). The term JUMPS was applied to the IF in an article published in PubMed in 2021, describing an increase of more than 40% of IF. In this study, we aimed to compare the growth rate of IF JUMPS in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging in the last 6 years. This retrospective study calculated the growth rate (JUMP) in IF from 2015 to 2020. We used the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests to calculate the statistically significant difference in IF from 2015 to 2020 and the 2019 to 2020 difference. We classified JUMPS in negative growth rate, quartiles, and journals with >100%. Three journals had more than 100% IF growth rate during 2020 ( Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Physik , Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology , and Ultrasound Quarterly ). A 76% to 100% growth rate was observed in another 4 journals (3.2%), and 8 journals (6.3%) depicted a 51% to 75% percentage of change. Repeated measures analyses showed a significant difference ( P < 0.001). During the COVID-19 pandemic, several journals in the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category increased their IF by 50%. Knowing the growing trends in this category might supplement the assessment of target journals for authors looking to submit their works.

Editorial

Editorial

Publication timeline of chest imaging reporting in children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review spanning 2020.

Amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, numerous publications of imaging findings in children have surfaced in a very short time. Publications discuss populations of overlapping age groups and describe different imaging patterns. We aim to present an overview of the quantity and type of literature available regarding COVID-19 chest imaging findings in children according to a 2020 publication timeline. We conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. We searched terminology related to COVID-19, chest, children and imaging modalities in PubMed and Embase. The included papers were published online in 2020 and described imaging findings specific to children and reported five or more cases. Two researchers reviewed each abstract to determine inclusion or exclusion, and a radiologist reconciled any disagreements. Then we reviewed full articles for the main analysis. Eligible study designs included original articles, case series (≥5 cases), systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We excluded non-English manuscripts, retracted articles, and those without available full text. The remaining articles were distributed to four pediatric radiologists (on the Society for Pediatric Radiology Thoracic Committee), who summarized chest imaging findings. Eighty-two articles were included in the final analysis — 28% in radiology journals and 71% in non-radiology journals; 71% contained original data and 29% were review-style papers. There was a disproportionate contribution of review-style papers in April (55%), considering the paucity of preceding publications with original data in March (5 papers). June had the highest number of publications (n=14), followed by April (n=11) and July (n=11). Most (52%) original papers were from China and most individual pediatric imaging descriptions were from China (57%), while the majority of review papers (83%) were international. Imaging descriptions were available for 2,199 children (1,678 CT descriptions and 780 chest radiography descriptions). Findings included a 25% normal CT scan reports vs. 40% normal chest radiography reports. Ground-glass opacification was the most common CT finding (33%) and was reported in only a minority of chest radiographs (9%). A significant amount of information on pediatric COVID-19 chest imaging has become rapidly available over a short period. Most publications in 2020 were original articles, but they were published more often in non-radiology journals. A disproportionate number of review articles were published early on and were based on little original pediatric imaging data. CT scan reports, which represent the standard, outnumbered radiographic reports and indicated that ground-glass opacification is the main imaging finding and that only a quarter of scans are normal in children with COVID-19.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Diagnostic Musculoskeletal Radiology: A Systematic Review

Diagnostic musculoskeletal imaging represents a large economic expenditure within the health care system. Cost-effectiveness analysis can identify the most efficient use of imaging resources, but the literature is not well summarized. The purpose of this study was to summarize the existing literature on this topic and identify areas for future research. A systematic review of the literature was performed for 1995 - 2020. Data was extracted and summarized from those studies meeting inclusion criteria including publication and analysis characteristics and clinical topics. The search found 27 studies meeting inclusion criteria of which 16 (59%) were published in the last 5 years. Studies were clustered around specific topics with 21 (78%) of studies analyzing either osteoporosis screening (n=9, 33%), cancer imaging (n=4, 15%), inflammatory arthritis (n=4, 15%), or spinal trauma (n=4, 15%). Only 4 studies (15%) were published in radiology journals. Although 12 studies (44%) had a radiologist author, only 8 (30%) had a radiologist as first or senior author. Existing cost-effectiveness analyses in musculoskeletal radiology are clustered around a small number of topics and few studies are led by radiologists. Future research should target under-represented clinical topics and radiologists should actively pursue involvement in this field to apply their unique expertise and understanding of imaging.

Assessing the gender gap in musculoskeletal radiology authorship across three continents: are really the “ladies first”?

To assess gender-specific authorship trends in musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology in three major radiology journals, Skeletal Radiology (SR), Clinical Radiology (CR) and Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging (IJRI). Retrospective analysis of articles pertaining to MSK radiology was done for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 for SR and CR and for the years 2010 and 2020 for IJRI. The number and positions of female authors was noted. Three hundred and twenty-five articles were reviewed after excluding the articles where the gender of one or more authors could not be conclusively determined. In SR, the percentage of female authors increased significantly from 4% in 2000 to 17% in 2010 (p<0.0001) and to 21.9% in 2020 (p<0.0001) with an increase in the percentage of first female authors from 0.8% in 2000 to 4.9% in 2010 and further to 5.4% in 2020. In CR, the percentage of female authors reduced from 13.8% in 2000 to 13.6% in 2010 (p=0.9798 and further reduced to 7% in 2020 (p=0.1592). In IJRI, the percentage of articles with no female authors went down from 36.4% (2010) to 26.7% (2020). There is an upward trend in female authorship in MSK radiology related articles in SR and IJRI with continued under-representation in CR. The first and middle order female authors have shown a significant increase, although the number of last female authors remains very low. Analysis of such trends in academic journals from other subspecialities in medicine needs to be undertaken to confirm or refute the findings of this study.

Preferential reporting of significant p-values in radiology journal abstracts

To assess the prevalence of publication bias in the radiology literature, data-mining techniques were used to extract p-values in abstracts published in key radiology journals over the past 20 years. A total of 34,699 abstracts published in Radiology, Investigative Radiology, European Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, and American Journal of Neuroradiology published between January 2000 and December 2019 were included in the analysis. Automated text mining using regular expressions was used to mine abstracts for p-values. The text mining algorithm detected 43,489 p-values, the majority (82.4%) of which were reported as "significant", i.e., p<0.05. There has also been an increased propensity to report more p-values over time. The distribution of p-values showed a step change at the conventional significance threshold of 0.05. The odds ratio of a "significant" p-value being reported in the abstract compared to the full text was calculated to be 2.52 (95% confidence interval 1.78-3.58; p<0.001). Taken together, these results provide strong evidence for selective reporting of significant p-values in abstracts. Statistically significant p-values are preferentially reported in radiology journal abstracts.

The Editorial Dilemma in Medical Journals: An Opinion

I have published many papers in different medical journals and I noticed there is something that I would like to call it “The Editorial Dilemma”. This editorial dilemma is form of bureaucracy that editors of journals make in front of science publishing. The editors will ask to change the article many times, until the article is not the same idea that the author submitted in the 1st time. This dilemma as well characterized by delaying of articles publishing which will take 6 months to 1 year to publish one article and maybe even more time. The formatting of medical journals are different and each journal ask for different styles of formatting and citation. Most of these journals request publishing fees, open source fees, archiving the article “indexed” on PubMed fees, etc. These obstacles put forward by the editor are restrictions against science which had led to form the research centers publishing groups which is “a formal malpractice”. This practice where endless list of authors, list their names on the paper since publishing needs a team effort and funding for publishing of only one paper. The editor can jump in the peer-reviewing process to become a reviewer then reject the paper or ask for changes which lead to create “preprint online depositories” to avoid the editor dilemma. The editors shape what type of science should be published or not. They determine what science is? And what is not! The editorial dilemma is even chasing the online preprint depositories by forcing them to remove papers from their websites. This level of madness made by the Aristocratic editors is shutting down science in every way possible. I submitted a rare case report before to the Radiology Journal of Case Reports and they asked me to provide a histopathological confirmation for the rare disease! I told the journal that the patient refused to undergo any biopsy operation. The journal refused to publish my paper because the editor jumped in with the reviewers and refused to publish with no histopathology confirmation; even though; 5 top neuroradiologists reviewed the case report and all agreed that this case is extremely rare and they never saw anything like it (i.e. like Dr. House cases), but the editor rejected the case, so his vote takes on 5 neuroradiologists votes. This shows that editors are the biggest dilemma in the way of science.

Dedicated COVID-19 Resource Center in Radiology Journals: Its Citation Metrics and Altmetrics Impact.

Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several journals have established a dedicated resource center for all the articles published on COVID-19. Our study compared the altmetric impact captured by articles published in journals having a COVID-19 resource center. We used the Web of Science database to assess radiology journals publishing the most common articles on COVID-19. We used the dimensions database to assess citations received and altmetric attention score for each article. For each article, we extracted several citations received and altmetric attention scores. To account for the variation in strength and exposure between included journals, we adopted a normalization strategy and regression analysis in our statistical analysis. A total of 494 articles were included in the current assessment, including 334 (67.6%) articles published in journals with the dedicated COVID-19 resource center, including European radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Radiology, and Journal of the American college of radiology, while European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Academic Radiology did not have COVID-19 resource center. Journals with COVID-19 resource center had a mean normalized altmetric attention score of 0.38 higher (95% CI 0.25 to 0.50; p< 0.001) and a mean normalized citation count of 6.73 higher (95% CI 3.99 to 9.48; p< 0.001) than those without COVID-19 resource center. Radiology journals that provided COVID-19 articles in a dedicated resource center within its homepage had greater attention and higher citation for their COVID-19 articles than journals that did not have such a dedicated resource center.

Is it Really the Drug…or the Microsphere?

The authors are to be commended for working out the pharmacokinetic profile of the polyethylene glycol (PEG) doxorubicin-eluting microsphere (Lifepearl; Terumo Europe, Leuven, Belgium) and demonstrating the safety of this device for the treatment of Child-Pugh A patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, more than half of whom had solitary tumors published in this issue of Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (1). The patients had Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer stage A or B disease; patients with a performance status of >0 or metastatic disease were excluded.

The Radiology: Artificial Intelligence Trainee Editorial Board: Initial Experience and Future Directions

In 2019, the journal Radiology: Artificial Intelligence introduced its Trainee Editorial Board (TEB) to offer formal training in medical journalism to medical students, radiology residents and fellows, and research-career trainees. The TEB aims to build a community of radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and researchers in fields related to artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology. The program presented opportunities to learn about the editorial process, improve skills in writing and reviewing, advance the field of AI in radiology, and help translate and disseminate AI research. To meet these goals, TEB members contribute actively to the editorial process from peer review to publication, participate in educational webinars, and create and curate content in a variety of forms. Almost all of the contact has been mediated through the web. In this article, we share initial experiences and identify future directions and opportunities.

Assessing Antibiotic Adherence and Improving Antibiotic Stewardship in Common Interventional Radiology Procedures

PurposeIn 2018, The Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (JVIR) updated its guidelines regarding periprocedural antibiotics. However, some institutions are slower to adopt these new guidelines. Additionally, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and sepsis are serious concerns due in part to incorrect usage of antibiotics. The purpose of this study is to assess institutional adherence to 2018 JVIR guidelines for the purpose of improving antibiotic stewardship. Materials and methodsA total of 800 cases over a 10-month time period were retrospectively identified and charted following the release of guidelines. Inclusion criteria for the study were adults aged 21 years or older undergoing mediport placement, tunneled central line (TCL) placement, nephrostomy tube exchange, percutaneous biliary drain, or cholecystostomy tube exchange. Exclusion criteria included immunocompromised and pregnant individuals as 2018 guidelines may not fit these patient populations. Guideline adherence for each procedure was recorded as a percentage; the timing of the antibiotic usage was also recorded and compared to the guidelines (within 60 minutes before incision). ResultsIn total, 49 mediport placements, 118 tunneled central line placements – 44 hemodialysis (HD) catheters and 74 nonhemodialysis (non-HD) catheters, 100 nephrostomy exchanges, and 82 biliary tube exchanges were included. Antibiotics were used in 83.6% (41/49) of mediport patients, 11.3% (5/44) of non-HD TCL patients, 20.5% (15/74) of HD TCL patients, 55% (55/100) nephrostomy tube changes, and 65.4% (55/84) of biliary or cholecystostomy tube exchanges. Out of those given prophylaxis, guideline-recommended antibiotics were used in 100% (41/41) of mediport, 100% (20/20) of TCL (both HD and non-HD catheters), 9% (5/55) of nephrostomy tube exchanges, and 1.8% (1/55) of biliary tube exchanges. Guideline-recommended timing was followed in 75.3% across all cases (ranging from 72.2% in mediports to 79.3% in biliary exchanges). ConclusionThis study of antibiotic practices at a single university-based academic institution revealed that antibiotic usage is not fully up to date with 2018 guidelines. For mediports, non-HD TCL placements, and nephrostomy tube exchanges, institutional changes should be made to reduce periprocedural antibiotic use, as antibiotics are no longer recommended for these procedures. For HD TCL and biliary exchanges, proper adherence to recommended prophylactic antibiotics should be followed. In addition, education about the correct antibiotic timing should be emphasized to increase compliance with guidelines.

Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) of Radiological Articles Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline

This study evaluated the completeness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in radiology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts guidelines between articles published before and those published after the issuance of the guideline and identify areas that have been poorly reported. PubMed were searched for systematic reviews on DTA with or without meta-analyses published in general radiology journals between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. The identified articles were assessed for completeness of reporting according to the PRISMA-DTA. Subgroup analyses were performed for association of completeness of reporting with multiple cofactors. The search identified 183 reviews from 12 journals. The mean numbers (standard deviation) of reported PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts items in the full texts and abstracts were 18.45 (2.02) and 5.66 (1.28), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that compared to the corresponding reference groups, a higher mean number of reported PRISMA-DTA items was associated with publication during July 2018-December 2020 [(17.82 (2.01) vs 18.89 (1.91); p=0.034), citation of the PRISMA-DTA [17.62 (1.86) vs 20.27 (2.02); p < 0.001], and inclusion of supplementary materials [17.64 (2) vs 19.09 (1.8); p < 0.001] on multiple-linear regression analysis. Completeness of reporting with respect to the PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts has improved modestly since the publication of the PRISMA-DTA guideline; however, increasing awareness of the specific weakness provides the chance for completeness improvement.

“I saw the sign”: Ace of Base (yes) inspires a column for Clinical Imaging promoting education, mentorship and sponsorship

“I saw the sign”: Ace of Base (yes) inspires a column for Clinical Imaging promoting education, mentorship and sponsorship

Health Care Industry Payments to Editorial Board Members of Imaging-related Journals.

Background Editorial board members may be biased due to conflicts of interest (COIs). Purpose To investigate the frequency and amount of payments from industry to editorial board members of imaging-related journals and whether they are in agreement with the disclosure status as provided by the journal. Materials and Methods Editorial board members of 15 U.S.-based imaging-related journals who were listed in the Open Payments database (OPD) were included. Payments from industry to editorial board members in the year 2020 were extracted from the OPD and compared with publicly available COI disclosure data as provided by the journals. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 519 editorial board members were included, of whom 214 (41%) received industry payment and 305 (59%) did not. Payments to editorial board members by the industry ranged from $12.63 to $404 625.47 (median, $2397.48). Most payments from industry (59%) were ascribed to consulting. Editorial board members of the journals JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging and Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology received significantly higher amounts of individual payments from industry than editorial board members of most other journals. Financial COI disclosures were not publicly listed for 413 of the 519 (80%) editorial board members, 169 of whom received payments from industry according to the OPD. Of the 106 editorial board members whose financial COI disclosures were publicly listed, 36 (34%) were discordant with the OPD. Conclusion Payments from industry to Open Payments database-listed editorial board members of imaging-related journals are prevalent. Imaging-related journals often do not report or do not accurately report payments from industry to their editorial board members © RSNA, 2022.

Geographic Trends in Publications and Submissions in Radiology Journals: Decade Report (2010 – 2020)

The Radiology Research Alliance (RRA) of the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) organized a task force to quantify geographic changes in submissions to and publications within radiology journals over time. Twenty journals were selected: 7 US-based general, 4 European-based general, and 9 subspecialty radiology journals. Journals were solicited for submissions and publications based on country of origin from 2010 -2020. Regression models assessed changes over time across countries, and by continent, with an emphasis on the US and China, for each journal category. There were 104,679 publications and 92,446 submissions from 149 countries. Overall, there were significant increases in numbers of publications from Asia (R2=0.66, p <0.01), and specifically, China (R2=0.87, p <0.01). For US journals, there were increased numbers of publications from Asia (R2=0.72, p <0.01) and China (R2=0.98, p <0.01), but decreased numbers from North America (R2=0.41, p=0.03). For European journals, there were increased numbers of publications from Asia (R2=0.79, p <0.01), North America (R2=0.75, p <0.01), and China (R2=0.82, p <0.01). For subspecialty journals, there were increased numbers of publications from North America (R2=0.38, p=0.04) and China (R2=0.73, p <0.01). There was an acute COVID spike in submissions during 2020, with a continuous increase most notable in China (R2=0.96, p <0.01). In the last decade, the numbers of submissions to and publications within general and subspecialty US and European radiology journals have generally increased around the world, with the largest growth in Asia and in particular China.

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

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. To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. Meta-research. 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. 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. 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. 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. Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Use of "Diagnostic Yield" in Imaging Research Reports: Results from Articles Published in Two General Radiology Journals.

"Diagnostic yield," also referred to as the detection rate, is a parameter positioned between diagnostic accuracy and diagnosis-related patient outcomes in research studies that assess diagnostic tests. Unfamiliarity with the term may lead to incorrect usage and delivery of information. Herein, we evaluate the level of proper use of the term "diagnostic yield" and its related parameters in articles published in Radiology and Korean Journal of Radiology (KJR). Potentially relevant articles published since 2012 in these journals were identified using MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases. The initial search yielded 239 articles. We evaluated whether the correct definition and study setting of "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" were used and whether the articles also reported companion parameters for false-positive results. We calculated the proportion of articles that correctly used these parameters and evaluated whether the proportion increased with time (2012-2016 vs. 2017-2022). Among 39 eligible articles (19 from Radiology and 20 from KJR), 17 (43.6%; 11 from Radiology and 6 from KJR) correctly defined "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." The remaining 22 articles used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" with incorrect meanings such as "diagnostic performance" or "sensitivity." The proportion of correctly used diagnostic terms was higher in the studies published in Radiology than in those published in KJR (57.9% vs. 30.0%). The proportion improved with time in Radiology (33.3% vs. 80.0%), whereas no improvement was observed in KJR over time (33.3% vs. 27.3%). The proportion of studies reporting companion parameters was similar between journals (72.7% vs. 66.7%), and no considerable improvement was observed over time. Overall, a minority of articles accurately used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." Incorrect usage of the terms was more frequent without improvement over time in KJR than in Radiology. Therefore, improvements are required in the use and reporting of these parameters.

Variations in Testicular Artery, Phrenic Artery and Renal Artery: A Case Series

IJARS, About International Journal of Anatomy Radiology and Surgery aims to publish findings of doctors at grass root level and post graduate students, so that all unique medical experiences are recorded in literature.