Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 7, Issue 7 , Pages 490-494 , July 2010

On the More Insidious Manifestations of Bias in Scientific Reporting

  • R. James Brenner, MD, JD

      Affiliations

    • Bay Imaging Consultants, Carol Ann Read Breast Health Center, Oakland, California
    • University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author and reprints: R. James Brenner, MD, JD, Bay Imaging Consultants, Carol Ann Read Breast Health Center, 3100 Summit Street, Oakland, CA 94609

References 

  1. DeMaria AN. Peer review: better than the alternatives. J Am Coll Cardiology. 2002;40:1017–1028
  2. Cohen MD. Data presentation bias: a source of potential error in radiology scientific publications. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:667–668
  3. Sica GT. Bias in research studies. Radiology. 2006;238:780–789
  4. Pickardt PJ, Kim DH. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography: key concepts regarding polyp prevalence, size, histology, morphology, and natural history. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:40–46
  5. Gallagher TH, Brenner RJ, Miglioretti DL, et al. Disclosing harmful errors to patients. Radiology. 2009;253:443–452
  6. Berlin L. The mea culpa conundrum. Radiology. 2009;253:284–287
  7. Wilson SR, Greenbaum LD, Goldberg BB. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: what is the evidence and what are the obstacles?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:55–60
  8. Bonavita JA, Mayo J, Babb J, et al. Pattern recognition of benign nodules at ultrasound of the thyroid: which nodules can be left alone?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:207–213
  9. Brenner RJ. On the logistics of interpretive radiology reporting: moving beyond Procrustes. J Am Col Radiol. 2009;6:544–546
  10. Berlin L. Communicating results of all outpatient radiologic examinations directly to patients: the time has come. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:571–573
  11. Townsend v Turk, 218 Cal App 3d 278, 266 Cal Rptr 821 (1990).
  12. Hall FM. The radiology report of the future. Radiology. 2009;251:313–316
  13. Maes RM. Suggestion from the radiology report of the future. Radiology. 2009;252:929
  14. Siegal EC, Angelakis EJ, Hartman A. Can peer review contribute to the earlier diction of breast cancer? (A quality initiative to learn from false-negative mammograms). Breast J. 2008;14:330–334
  15. Brenner RJ. Editorial comment. Breast Dis Yearbook Q. 2009;20:386–387
  16. Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, Teal C, Kelly T, Mathur V. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;247:651–657
  17. Sickles EA. Editorial comment. Breast Dis Yearbook Q. 2009;20:268–269
  18. Arora N, Martins D, Ruggerio D, et al. Effectiveness of a noninvasive digital infrared thermal imaging system in the detection of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2008;196:523–526
  19. Abujudeh HH, Rathachai K, Choy G, Whelton DG, Rosenthal DI. Important imaging finding e-mail alert system: experience after 3 years of implantation. Radiology. 2009;252:747–753
  20. Phillips v Good Samaritan, 65 Ohio App 2d 112, 19 Ohio Op 3d 66, 416 NE 2d 646, 1979 Ohio App Lexis 8459 (Ohio Ct App, Montgomery County 1979).
  21. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings (revised 2005). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology.
  22. Brenner RJ, Bassett LW, Fajardo L, et al. Stereotactic core breast biopsy: a multiinstitutional prospective trial. Radiology. 2001;218:866–872
  23. Goergen SK, Rumbold G, Compton G, Harris C. Systematic review of current guidelines and their evidence base, on risk of lactic acidosis after administration of contrast medium for patients receiving metformin. Radiology. 2010;254:261–269
  24. Pentecost MJ. Errors, chasms, and roadmaps. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:669–670
  25. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–1783
  26. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246:376–383
  27. Council of Biology EditorsStyle Manual Committee. Scientific style and format: the CBE manual for authors, editors, and publishers. In: 6th ed.. Reston, Va: Council of Biology Editors; 1994;p. 101

PII: S1546-1440(10)00077-3

doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.007

Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 7, Issue 7 , Pages 490-494 , July 2010

Article Tools