Measuring interdisciplinarity of biomedical research, medical specialty performance, and implications for radiology: A retrospective review of 2.6 million citations

PURPOSE

To assess and determine the overall interdisciplinarity and impact of radiology and imaging sciences research.

METHODS

Utilizing the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, the top 15 journals rank-ordered by impact factor in each of 10 major medical subspecialties were identified. The 2012 impact factors for these journals were noted. All articles published in these journals between 2012 and 2014 were then used to produce an index list of publications. We next generated a list of all published articles in the ensuing 5-year period that cited any publication present on our index list. These data were then used to calculate an interdisciplinarity score (DIV*) for 146 unique scientific journals. The correlation between the impact factor and the DIV* score was calculated with Kendall's τ.

RESULTS

The quantitative measure of research interdisciplinarity, DIV*, is significantly correlated with journal impact factor (τ = 0.201, p < 0.001). Research journals within radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging ranked 5th among 10 clinical subspecialties by mean impact factor but ranked second-to-last in mean DIV*.

CONCLUSION

The interdisciplinarity score DIV* is positively correlated with journal impact factor, demonstrating the greater impact and reach of interdisciplinary research. Further, we found radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging research to have one of the lowest measures of DIV* among the 10 major clinical subspecialties. Our findings suggest and point to new opportunities and directions that can expand the breadth and impact of radiology research as well as new ways to increase our reach and audience in the clinical scientific literature.

Risk Factors for Late Screening Mammography

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer has the highest incidence of cancers in women in the United States. Previous research has shown that screening mammography contributes to reduced breast cancer mortality. This study aimed to clarify why late screening might occur in an at-risk population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a prospective cross-sectional study including 758 patients presenting to our radiology department for routine screening mammography who completed a 30-question survey regarding personal characteristics and mammography history. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to determine whether survey responses correlated with late screening.

RESULTS

Of the 758 patients, 184 (24%) were noncompliant with screening mammography guidelines. Risk factors for late screening included younger age (P = 0.001), white race/ethnicity (P = 0.03), self-reported lack of financial means or health insurance (P = 0.005), lack of satisfaction with a previous mammogram experience (P = 0.001), inadequate mammography education by a physician (P = 0.001), and lack of awareness/comprehension of screening mammography guidelines (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Many factors contribute to late screening mammography. Although some are outside physician control, others can be influenced: patient education regarding screening mammography guidelines, and patient satisfaction with the mammography experience. This study highlights the importance of communication with and education of patients.

Computed tomography localization of the appendix in the pediatric population relative to the lumbar spine

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) is commonly used to evaluate suspected acute appendicitis. Although very effective, CT uses ionizing radiation, exposing patients to an increased risk of cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the potential for decreasing the field of view of the CT (and therefore the dose to the patient) in the evaluation of suspected acute appendicitis in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from 212 consecutive patients who underwent CT for suspected acute appendicitis. The most superior aspect of the appendix with respect to vertebral bodies was recorded. Age, gender and diagnosis (negative, acute appendicitis or alternative diagnosis) were noted.

RESULTS

The appendix was visualized in 190 of 212 subjects (89.6%). Overall, all visualized appendixes were located at or below the level of L1. Sixty-three of the subjects (29.7%) were diagnosed with acute appendicitis via CT imaging. All appendixes in patients with acute appendicitis were located at or below the level of the L3 vertebral body, predominating at the level of L5. Six subjects (3.1%) received alternative diagnoses, including pneumonia, pyelonephritis, small bowel obstruction and infected urachal cyst. There were no differences in appendix location with regard to diagnosis, gender, or age (P=0.664, 0.748 and 0.705, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CT field of view may be decreased to the level of L1 or L3 superiorly, decreasing radiation dose without affecting the rate of appendix visualization.