Assessment study on the quality of diagnostic radiographic case reports published in imaging journals of the Chinese science citation database
10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20211018-00927
- VernacularTitle:中国科学引文数据库影像期刊发表放射影像诊断病例报告质量的评价研究
- Author:
Mengshu WANG
1
;
Xufei LUO
;
Xiaojuan XIAO
;
Ying ZHU
;
Ling WANG
;
Yaolong CHEN
;
Junqiang LEI
;
Jinhui TIAN
Author Information
1. 兰州大学基础医学院循证医学中心，兰州 730000
- Keywords:
Case report;
Reporting quality;
Diagnostic imaging
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2022;56(8):898-904
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the reporting quality of diagnostic radiological imaging case reports published in Chinese science citation database (CSCD) imaging journals.Methods:This study was a cross-sectional survey. We searched CSCD to include imaging journals from 2021 to 2022, from which we retrieved diagnostic radiological imaging case reports published in 2020, and evaluated their reporting quality using case reports (CARE) reporting criteria.Results:A total of five imaging CSCD journals were searched, with 161 final diagnostic imaging case reports included. The median and interquartile range reporting rate of the included studies was 33.5% (7.5%, 93.3%), and patient perspective and informed consent were not reported in all studies. Items with reporting rates below 10% included 3a (abstract-introduction), 3c (abstract-diagnoses, therapeutic interventions, and outcomes), 8b (diagnostic challenges), and 8d (prognosis where applicable), with reporting rates of 2.5% (4/161), 0.6% (1/161), 0.6% (1/161), and 4.3% (7/161), respectively. Reporting rates for items between 10% and 50% included 3b (abstract-main symptoms and/or important clinical findings), 4 (introduction), 5c (medical, family, and psycho-social history), 7 (timeline), 10 (follow-up and outcomes), and 11a (a scientific discussion of the strengths and limitations), with reporting rates of 16.8% (27/161), 30.4% (49/161), 34.2% (55/161), 24.8% (40/161), 32.9% (53/161), and 31.7% (51/161), respectively; The reporting rates for item 1 (title), item 2 (keywords), item 5a (identified patient specific information), item 5b (primary concerns and symptoms of the patient), item 8a (diagnostic testing), and item 11c (the scientific rationale for any conclusions) were all over 90%. Moreover, the number of authors as well as the number of disciplines were not associated with the quality of diagnostic imaging case reports.Conclusions:The overall adherence to CARE items in radiographic diagnostic case reports published in the CSCD imaging journals is low. Editors of the imaging journals, radiologists and the researchers of the reporting standard should emphasize the guidelines for drafting case reports and improve the quality of reporting of case reports.
