For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
18
views
Article has an altmetric score of 81
16
references
 Top references
cited by
2
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      4,009
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      How to write an original radiological research manuscript

      Author(s): ,
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: European Radiology
      Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="P1">Many scientific manuscripts submitted for publication are limited by fundamental mistakes in their preparation, leading to rejection. We describe how to write a well-organized radiological research manuscript containing all of the important ingredients for effective communication of a hypothesis driven scientific study in the context of medical imaging. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture

          Natalie Matosin, Elisabeth Frank, Martin Engel … (2014)
          ABSTRACT Science is often romanticised as a flawless system of knowledge building, where scientists work together to systematically find answers. In reality, this is not always the case. Dissemination of results are straightforward when the findings are positive, but what happens when you obtain results that support the null hypothesis, or do not fit with the current scientific thinking? In this Editorial, we discuss the issues surrounding publication bias and the difficulty in communicating negative results. Negative findings are a valuable component of the scientific literature because they force us to critically evaluate and validate our current thinking, and fundamentally move us towards unabridged science.
          Article 0 comments Cited 71 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
          Article has an altmetric score of 153
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.

            Patrick M Bossuyt, Johannes B Reitsma, David E Bruns … (2003)
            To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering group searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, using evidence, whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public. Copyright RSNA, 2003
            Article 0 comments Cited 71 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Article has an altmetric score of 9
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD.

              Daniël A Korevaar, René Spijker, Lotty Hooft … (2014)
              Poor reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies impedes an objective appraisal of the clinical performance of diagnostic tests. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement, first published in 2003, aims to improve the reporting quality of such studies. To investigate to which extent published diagnostic accuracy studies adhere to the 25-item STARD checklist, whether the reporting quality has improved after STARD's launch and whether there are any factors associated with adherence. We performed a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Methodology Register of the Cochrane Library for studies that primarily aimed to examine the reporting quality of articles on diagnostic accuracy studies in humans by evaluating adherence to STARD. Study selection was performed in duplicate; data were extracted by one author and verified by the second author. We included 16 studies, analysing 1496 articles in total. Three studies investigated adherence in a general sample of diagnostic accuracy studies; the others did so in a specific field of research. The overall mean number of items reported varied from 9.1 to 14.3 between 13 evaluations that evaluated all 25 STARD items. Six studies quantitatively compared post-STARD with pre-STARD articles. Combining these results in a random-effects meta-analysis revealed a modest but significant increase in adherence after STARD's introduction (mean difference 1.41 items (95% CI 0.65 to 2.18)). The reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies was consistently moderate, at least through halfway the 2000s. Our results suggest a small improvement in the years after the introduction of STARD. Adherence to STARD should be further promoted among researchers, editors and peer reviewers.
              Article 0 comments Cited 48 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Article has an altmetric score of 17
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: European Radiology
                Abbreviated Title: Eur Radiol
                Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                ISSN (Print): 0938-7994
                ISSN (Electronic): 1432-1084
                Publication date Created: November 2017
                Publication date (Electronic): June 14 2017
                Publication date (Print): November 2017
                Volume: 27
                Issue: 11
                Pages: 4455-4460
                Article
                DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4879-8
                PMC ID: 6599681
                PubMed ID: 28616726
                SO-VID: 42f533f7-b7cd-4ae9-bc1c-fc2fabe0acbd
                Copyright © © 2017
                License:

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content4,009

                See all similar

                Cited by2

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors168

                See all reference authors