{"title":"Research designs of publications in radiography professional journals - A modified bibliometric analysis","authors":"E. Iweka , B.N. Ezenwuba , B. Snaith","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2024.06.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Evidence based practice relies on availability of research evidence mostly through peer-reviewed journal publications. No consensus currently exists on the best hierarchy of research evidence, often categorised by the adopted research designs. Analysing the prevalent research designs in radiography professional journals is one vital step in considering an evidence hierarchy specific to the radiography profession and this forms the aim of this study.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Bibliometric data of publications in three Radiography professional journals within a 10-year period were extracted. The Digital Object Identifier were used to locate papers on publishers' websites and obtain relevant data for analysis. Descriptive analysis using frequencies and percentages were used to represent data while Chi-square was used to analyse relationship between categorical variables.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>1830 articles met the pre-set inclusion criteria. Quantitative descriptive studies were the most published design (26.6%) followed by non-RCT experimental studies (18.7%), while Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) were the least published (1.0%). Systematic reviews (42.9%) showed the highest average percentage increase within the 10-year period, however RCTs showed no net increase. Single-centre studies predominated among experimental studies (RCT = 88.9%; Non-RCT = 95%). Author collaboration across all study designs was notable, with RCTs showing the most (100%). Quantitative and qualitative studies comparatively had similar number of citations when publication numbers were matched. Quantitative descriptive studies had the highest cumulative citations while RCTs had the least.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There is a case to advocate for more study designs towards the peak of evidence hierarchies such as systematic reviews and RCT. Radiography research should be primarily designed to answer pertinent questions and improve the validity of the profession's evidence base.</p></div><div><h3>Implication for practice</h3><p>The evidence presented can encourage the adoption of the research designs that enhances radiography profession's evidence base.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817424001536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Evidence based practice relies on availability of research evidence mostly through peer-reviewed journal publications. No consensus currently exists on the best hierarchy of research evidence, often categorised by the adopted research designs. Analysing the prevalent research designs in radiography professional journals is one vital step in considering an evidence hierarchy specific to the radiography profession and this forms the aim of this study.
Methods
Bibliometric data of publications in three Radiography professional journals within a 10-year period were extracted. The Digital Object Identifier were used to locate papers on publishers' websites and obtain relevant data for analysis. Descriptive analysis using frequencies and percentages were used to represent data while Chi-square was used to analyse relationship between categorical variables.
Results
1830 articles met the pre-set inclusion criteria. Quantitative descriptive studies were the most published design (26.6%) followed by non-RCT experimental studies (18.7%), while Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) were the least published (1.0%). Systematic reviews (42.9%) showed the highest average percentage increase within the 10-year period, however RCTs showed no net increase. Single-centre studies predominated among experimental studies (RCT = 88.9%; Non-RCT = 95%). Author collaboration across all study designs was notable, with RCTs showing the most (100%). Quantitative and qualitative studies comparatively had similar number of citations when publication numbers were matched. Quantitative descriptive studies had the highest cumulative citations while RCTs had the least.
Conclusion
There is a case to advocate for more study designs towards the peak of evidence hierarchies such as systematic reviews and RCT. Radiography research should be primarily designed to answer pertinent questions and improve the validity of the profession's evidence base.
Implication for practice
The evidence presented can encourage the adoption of the research designs that enhances radiography profession's evidence base.
RadiographyRADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
34.60%
发文量
169
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍:
Radiography is an International, English language, peer-reviewed journal of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. Radiography is the official professional journal of the College of Radiographers and is published quarterly. Radiography aims to publish the highest quality material, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy and oncology.