Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 6363University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Clinical Epidemiology Program, 10055Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada.
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2022 Feb;73(1):49-55. doi: 10.1177/08465371211006420. Epub 2021 Apr 20.
To examine if tweeting bias exists within imaging literature by determining if diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive titles or conclusions are tweeted more than non-positive studies.
DTA studies published between October 2011 to April 2016 were included. Positivity of titles and conclusions were assessed independently and in duplicate, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A negative binomial regression analysis controlling for confounding variables was performed to assess the relationship between title or conclusion positivity and tweets an article received in the 100 days post-publication.
354 DTA studies were included. Twenty-four (7%) titles and 300 (85%) conclusions were positive (or positive with qualifier); 1 (0.3%) title and 23 (7%) conclusions were negative; and 329 (93%) titles and 26 (7%) conclusions were neutral. Studies with positive, negative, and neutral titles received a mean of 0.38, 0.00, and 0.45 tweets per study; while those with positive, negative, and neutral conclusions received a mean of 0.44, 0.61, and 0.38 tweets per study. Regression coefficients were -0.05 (SE 0.46) for positive relative to non-positive titles, and -0.09 (SE 0.31) for positive relative to non-positive conclusions. The positivity of the title ( = 0.91) or conclusion ( = 0.76) was not significantly associated with the number of tweets an article received.
The positivity of the title or conclusion for DTA studies does not influence the amount of tweets it receives suggesting that tweet bias is not present among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies. Study protocol available at https://osf.io/hdk2m/.
通过确定具有阳性标题或结论的诊断测试准确性 (DTA) 研究是否比非阳性研究更频繁地被推送到 Twitter 上来检验影像学文献中是否存在推文偏见。
纳入 2011 年 10 月至 2016 年 4 月期间发表的 DTA 研究。独立并重复评估标题和结论的阳性程度，通过共识解决分歧。进行负二项回归分析以控制混杂变量，以评估标题或结论阳性与文章发表后 100 天内收到的推文数量之间的关系。
共纳入 354 项 DTA 研究。24 项 (7%) 标题和 300 项 (85%) 结论为阳性（或带限定词的阳性）；1 项 (0.3%) 标题和 23 项 (7%) 结论为阴性；329 项 (93%) 标题和 26 项 (7%) 结论为中性。阳性、阴性和中性标题的研究平均每条推文 0.38、0.00 和 0.45 条；阳性、阴性和中性结论的研究平均每条推文 0.44、0.61 和 0.38 条。与非阳性标题相比，阳性标题的回归系数为-0.05 (SE 0.46)，与非阳性结论相比，阳性结论的回归系数为-0.09 (SE 0.31)。标题（ = 0.91）或结论（ = 0.76）的阳性程度与文章收到的推文数量无显著相关性。
DTA 研究标题或结论的阳性程度不会影响其收到的推文数量，这表明在影像学诊断准确性研究中不存在推文偏见。研究方案可在 https://osf.io/hdk2m/ 获取。
