Publications by authors named "Herbert Y Kressel"

52 Publications

Clinical Imaging Research: Higher Evidence, Global Collaboration, Improved Reporting, and Data Sharing Are the Grand Challenges.

Radiology 2019 06 2;291(3):547-552. Epub 2019 Apr 2.

From the Department of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität and Freie Universität zu Berlin, Schumannstr 20/21, Berlin 10117, Germany (M.D., M.B.); Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany (M.D., S.T.); Department of Radiology, St. Vincent's University Hospital School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland (J.D.D.); and Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard University, Boston, Mass (H.Y.K.).

The four grand challenges of imaging research—increasing evidence levels, enhancing global collaboration, improving research reporting quality, and sharing trial data—can be addressed, utilizing the tail wind of digital transformation, by consolidating actions of all stakeholders, with the ultimate goal of evidence-based, reproducible, generalizable, and broadly accepted results that will improve the quality and consistency of patient care.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019181796DOI Listing
June 2019

Impact and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers.

Eur Radiol 2019 Aug 29;29(8):3986-3995. Epub 2019 Jan 29.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA.

Objectives: To analyse the author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers.

Methods: This survey was conducted among all corresponding authors of original research submissions to Radiology. Separately, we surveyed active Radiology reviewers. Results were analysed using logistic multivariate regression.

Results: Overall, 60% of authors (831/1391) completed the survey. Only 15% (120/821) had used the guideline and checklist when designing the study, significantly more so for PRISMA (55%, 16/29) compared with STARD and STROBE users (17%, 52/310; p < 0.001 and 10%, 46/443; p < 0.001). For 23% of the surveyed manuscripts (189/821), authors used the guidelines when writing the manuscript; these authors more often reported an impact on the final manuscript (i.e. changes in the content, 57%, 107/189) compared to those who used the guideline when submitting the manuscript (35%, 95/272; p < 0.001; OR 0.433, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.288-0.648, p < 0.001) or when the checklist was requested by the editorial office (17%, 41/240; p < 0.001; OR 0.156, CI 0.097-0.247, p < 0.001). The perceived value of the reporting guideline was rated significantly higher the earlier the authors used the guideline in the research process (p < 0.001). The checklist was used by 77% of reviewers (200/259) some or all of the time; 60% (119/199) said it affected their reviews.

Conclusion: Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and higher perceived value the earlier they were used, suggesting that there is a need for enhanced education on the use of these guidelines.

Key Points: • Only 15% of authors had used the respective reporting guideline and checklist when designing the study. • Almost 4 out of 5 Radiology authors and half of reviewers judged the guideline checklists to be useful or very useful. • Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on manuscripts, i.e. changes that were made in the final manuscript, the earlier authors used them in the research process.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5980-3DOI Listing
August 2019

Gadolinium Retention After Contrast-Enhanced MRI.

JAMA 2018 Nov;320(18):1853-1854

Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13362DOI Listing
November 2018

Gadolinium Retention: A Research Roadmap from the 2018 NIH/ACR/RSNA Workshop on Gadolinium Chelates.

Radiology 2018 11 11;289(2):517-534. Epub 2018 Sep 11.

From the Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (R.J.M.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215 (D.L., H.Y.K.); Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.W.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (M.S.D., J.H.E.); Cancer Imaging Program, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md (P.M.J.); Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex (R.E.L.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (K.R.M.); Department of Radiology, Cornell and Columbia Universities, New York, NY (M.R.P.); Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (H.A.R.); and Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio (M.F.T.).

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have revolutionized MRI, enabling physicians to obtain crucial life-saving medical information that often cannot be obtained with other imaging modalities. Since initial approval in 1988, over 450 million intravenous GBCA doses have been administered worldwide, with an extremely favorable pharmacologic safety profile; however, recent information has raised new concerns over the safety of GBCAs. Mounting evidence has shown there is long-term retention of gadolinium in human tissues. Further, a small subset of patients have attributed a constellation of symptoms to GBCA exposure, although the association of these symptoms with GBCA administration or gadolinium retention has not been proven by scientific investigation. Despite evidence that macrocyclic GBCAs show less gadolinium retention than linear GBCAs, the safety implications of gadolinium retention are unknown. The mechanism and chemical forms of gadolinium retention, as well as the biologic activity and clinical importance of these retained gadolinium species, remain poorly understood and underscore the need for additional research. In February 2018, an international meeting was held in Bethesda, Md, at the National Institutes of Health to discuss the current literature and knowledge gaps about gadolinium retention, to prioritize future research initiatives to better understand this phenomenon, and to foster collaborative standardized studies. The greatest priorities are to determine (a) if gadolinium retention adversely affects the function of human tissues, (b) if retention is causally associated with short- or long-term clinical manifestations of disease, and (c) if vulnerable populations, such as children, are at greater risk for experiencing clinical disease. The purpose of the research roadmap is to highlight important information that is not known and to identify and prioritize needed research. ©RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article .
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181151DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6209069PMC
November 2018

Connecting Technological Innovation in Artificial Intelligence to Real-world Medical Practice through Rigorous Clinical Validation: What Peer-reviewed Medical Journals Could Do.

J Korean Med Sci 2018 May 27;33(22):e152. Epub 2018 Apr 27.

Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is projected to substantially influence clinical practice in the foreseeable future. However, despite the excitement around the technologies, it is yet rare to see examples of robust clinical validation of the technologies and, as a result, very few are currently in clinical use. A thorough, systematic validation of AI technologies using adequately designed clinical research studies before their integration into clinical practice is critical to ensure patient benefit and safety while avoiding any inadvertent harms. We would like to suggest several specific points regarding the role that peer-reviewed medical journals can play, in terms of study design, registration, and reporting, to help achieve proper and meaningful clinical validation of AI technologies designed to make medical diagnosis and prediction, focusing on the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy efficacy. Peer-reviewed medical journals can encourage investigators who wish to validate the performance of AI systems for medical diagnosis and prediction to pay closer attention to the factors listed in this article by emphasizing their importance. Thereby, peer-reviewed medical journals can ultimately facilitate translating the technological innovations into real-world practice while securing patient safety and benefit.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e152DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966371PMC
May 2018

Are Study and Journal Characteristics Reliable Indicators of "Truth" in Imaging Research?

Radiology 2018 04 27;287(1):215-223. Epub 2017 Nov 27.

From the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Room C120, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1Y 4E9 (R.A.F., T.A.M.); Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa and the Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada (R.A.F., M.D.F.M., T.A.M.); Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada (M.D.F.M., W.P.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard University, Boston, Mass (D.L., H.Y.K.); Radiology Editorial Office, Boston, Mass (D.L., H.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, Harvard University, Boston, Mass (J.S.S.); and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.M.B.).

Purpose To evaluate whether journal-level variables (impact factor, cited half-life, and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] endorsement) and study-level variables (citation rate, timing of publication, and order of publication) are associated with the distance between primary study results and summary estimates from meta-analyses. Materials and Methods MEDLINE was searched for meta-analyses of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies, published from January 2005 to April 2016. Data on journal-level and primary-study variables were extracted for each meta-analysis. Primary studies were dichotomized by variable as first versus subsequent publication, publication before versus after STARD introduction, STARD endorsement, or by median split. The mean absolute deviation of primary study estimates from the corresponding summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity was compared between groups. Means and confidence intervals were obtained by using bootstrap resampling; P values were calculated by using a t test. Results Ninety-eight meta-analyses summarizing 1458 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial variability, but no significant differences, in deviations from the summary estimate between paired groups (P > .0041 in all comparisons). The largest difference found was in mean deviation for sensitivity, which was observed for publication timing, where studies published first on a topic demonstrated a mean deviation that was 2.5 percentage points smaller than subsequently published studies (P = .005). For journal-level factors, the greatest difference found (1.8 percentage points; P = .088) was in mean deviation for sensitivity in journals with impact factors above the median compared with those below the median. Conclusion Journal- and study-level variables considered important when evaluating diagnostic accuracy information to guide clinical decisions are not systematically associated with distance from the truth; critical appraisal of individual articles is recommended. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170586DOI Listing
April 2018

2017: A Look Back.

Radiology 2017 Dec;285(3):702-704

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017172237DOI Listing
December 2017

Facilitating Prospective Registration of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: A STARD Initiative.

Clin Chem 2017 08 19;63(8):1331-1341. Epub 2017 Jun 19.

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2017.272765DOI Listing
August 2017

External Factors That Influence the Practice of Radiology: Proceedings of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology Meeting.

Radiology 2017 06 4;283(3):845-853. Epub 2017 Feb 4.

From the Department of Radiology, Duke University, 2424 Erwin Rd, Suite 301, Duke Mail Box 2702, Durham, NC 27705 (G.D.R.); Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass (B.J.M.); Department of Radiology, Szegedi Tudomanyegyetem, Szeged, Hungary (A.P.); Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (J.H.T.); Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (G.P.K.); Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (A.M.); and Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass (H.Y.K.).

In both the United States and Europe, efforts to reduce soaring health care costs have led to intense scrutiny of both standard and innovative uses of imaging. Given that the United States spends a larger share of its gross domestic product on health care than any other nation and also has the most varied health care financing and delivery systems in the world, it has become an especially fertile environment for developing and testing approaches to controlling health care costs and value. This report focuses on recent reforms that have had a dampening effect on imaging use in the United States and provides a glimpse of obstacles that imaging practices may soon face or are already facing in other countries. On the basis of material presented at the 2015 meeting of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology, this report outlines the effects of reforms aimed at (a) controlling imaging use, (b) controlling payer expense through changes in benefit design, and (c) controlling both costs and quality through "value-based" payment schemes. Reasons are considered for radiology practices on both sides of the Atlantic about why the emphasis needs to shift from providing a large volume of imaging services to increasing the value of imaging as manifested in clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and overall system savings. Options for facilitating the shift from volume to value are discussed, from the use of advanced management strategies that improve workflow to the creation of programs for patient engagement, the development of new clinical decision-making support tools, and the validation of clinically relevant imaging biomarkers. Radiologists in collaboration with industry must enhance their efforts to expand the performance of comparative effectiveness research to establish the value of these initiatives, while being mindful of the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest. RSNA, 2017.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162187DOI Listing
June 2017

Management Matters.

Radiology 2017 Feb;282(2):310

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016164046DOI Listing
February 2017

Editor's Recognition Awards.

Radiology 2017 Jan;282(1)

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016162282DOI Listing
January 2017

Radiology Editorial Board 2017.

Radiology 2017 Jan;282(1)

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161954DOI Listing
January 2017

Setting Sail: 2017.

Radiology 2017 Jan;282(1):4-6

From the Radiology Editorial Office, 800 Boylston St, 15th Floor, Boston, MA 02119.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016162471DOI Listing
January 2017

2016: Reviewing for Radiology-Reporting Guidelines and Why We Use Them.

Radiology 2016 09 11;280(3):659-62. Epub 2016 Jul 11.

From the Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215.

It is our hope that increased use and awareness of guideline criteria will allow for the manuscripts, at the time of submission, to be more complete and aid our reviewers in better understanding, and thus critiquing, the methodology and results of submissions they receive. Online supplemental material is available for this article.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161204DOI Listing
September 2016

Radiology 2016: The Care and Scientific Rigor Used to Process and Evaluate Original Research Manuscripts for Publication.

Radiology 2016 Jan;278(1):6-10

From the Radiology Editorial Office, 800 Boylston St, 15th Floor, Boston, MA 02119.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015152256DOI Listing
January 2016

STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.

BMJ 2015 Oct 28;351:h5527. Epub 2015 Oct 28.

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands INSERM UMR 1153 and Department of Pediatrics, Necker Hospital, AP-HP, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4623764PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5527DOI Listing
October 2015

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Clin Chem 2015 Dec 28;61(12):1446-52. Epub 2015 Oct 28.

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; INSERM UMR 1153 and Department of Pediatrics, Necker Hospital, AP-HP, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2015.246280DOI Listing
December 2015

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Radiology 2015 Dec 28;277(3):826-32. Epub 2015 Oct 28.

From the Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.M.B., D.A.K.); Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (J.B.R.); Department of Pathology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Va (D.E.B.); Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI (C.A.G.); Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia (P.P.G.); Screening and Diagnostic Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (L.I.); Department of Psychiatry, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (J.G.L.); Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada (D.M.); School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada (D.M.); Peer Review Congress, Chicago, Ill (D.R.); Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, Calif (D.R.); Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (H.C.W.d.V.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (H.Y.K.); Radiology Editorial Office, Boston, Mass (H.Y.K.); Department of Laboratory Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (N.R.); Clinical Chemistry Editorial Office, Washington, DC (N.R.); Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics and Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill (R.M.G.); JAMA Editorial Office, Chicago, Ill (R.M.G.); Centre for Statistics in Me

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151516DOI Listing
December 2015

Response.

Radiology 2015 Jul;276(1):310

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
July 2015

Getting published in Radiology: A Deputy Editor's perspective.

Jpn J Radiol 2015 Oct 5;33(10):678-85. Epub 2015 Aug 5.

Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02215, MA, USA.

Radiology has been the official journal of the Radiological Society of North America since 1923. In 2014 it had an impact factor of 6.867, the highest for general radiology journals. The journal attracts a world-wide readership of approximately 54,000. Contributions from Japanese radiologists, radiographers, and radiological scientists are greatly welcomed. This article explains how we process the manuscripts submitted to the journal and describes the factors that can contribute to the decision to accept or reject.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11604-015-0468-4DOI Listing
October 2015

Radiology's legacy: rummaging through the attic.

Radiology 2015 Jan;274(1):20-8

From the Radiology Editorial Office, 800 Boylston St, 15th Floor, Boston, MA 02199.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14142265DOI Listing
January 2015

Introducing the "golden oldies" of radiology.

Radiology 2015 Jan;274(1):4-6

From the Radiology Editorial Office, 800 Boylston St, 15th Floor, Boston, MA 02119.

Online supplemental material is available for this article.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14142264DOI Listing
January 2015

Exploring the evolution of imaging.

Radiology 2014 Nov;273(2 Suppl):5A-7A

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14141445DOI Listing
November 2014

Tooltip to the rescue.

Radiology 2014 Nov;273(2):315-6

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14142112DOI Listing
November 2014

Beyond the impact factor: enhancing the impact of imaging research published in Radiology.

Radiology 2014 Jan;270(1):3-6

From the Radiology Editorial Office, 800 Boylston St, 15th Floor, Boston, MA 02119.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2701201401DOI Listing
January 2014

Behind the numbers.

Radiology 2013 Dec;269(3):648-9

From the Radiology Editorial Office, 800 Boylston St, 15th Floor, Boston, MA 02199.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131902DOI Listing
December 2013

Diagnosis Please 2013 Awards.

Radiology 2013 Dec;269(3):627-31

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131966DOI Listing
December 2013
-->