Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
EditorialEditorials

Level 1 EBM Expedited Review

J.S. Ross
American Journal of Neuroradiology August 2014, 35 (8) 1448-1449; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4047
J.S. Ross
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

A recent poll of Canadian researchers identified the top 3 factors that influence where they send their own manuscripts: 1) ensuring methodologic soundness by peer review, 2) journal reputation, and 3) fast publication.1 The AJNR (independent of this poll) has recognized these important factors, as well as the competitive nature of scientific publishing, by the introduction of a Level 1 Evidence-Based Medicine Expedited Program. The details of this significant program are defined on the AJNR Web site (see the “Author Info” section). Briefly, the program entails a very fast peer review time of 5–7 days, followed by an immediate editorial decision. The length of time from acceptance of the final revision to electronic publication would be 4 weeks. Other perks of this program include the waiving of various fees, such as the open access, color, and over-the-limit word count charges.

What is level 1 evidence? That depends. Levels of evidence were initially defined in 1979 by the Canadian Task Force on Periodic Health Examination.2 Sackett3 further defined this in 1989 in an article looking at the evidence for antithrombotic agents. This seminal paper was barely 2 pages in length. Since that time, interest in this subject has exploded, and there are now multiple stakeholders eyeing evidence-based medicine ranging from individual patients to the Federal government. Multiple excellent reviews are available for the intrepid reader of this complex and controversial topic.4,5

For the purpose of classification for the AJNR, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (2009) is used (also on the AJNR Web site).6 For neuroradiologists, the questions to be answered primarily involve therapy and diagnosis. Therapy level 1 studies include systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, and randomized controlled trials with narrow confidence limits. Diagnosis level 1 studies include systematic reviews of level 1 studies, a validating cohort study with good reference standards, or a clinical decision rule tested within 1 clinical center. For reference, a nonconsecutive study is level 3, a case series is level 4, and expert opinion is level 5 (ouch).

Evidence-based medicine defines a hierarchy of clinically relevant information; however, this information is by no means absolute.7 Certain therapies and treatments may be so effective or dramatic that they will never experience a randomized controlled trial. The oft-cited tongue-in-cheek manuscript evaluating randomized controlled trials in parachute use is a case in point.8 In our specialty, with its emphasis on technologic advancement, there will be seminal articles that advance the field and which provide important contributions to patient care, but do not achieve level 1–2 status (such as the initial diffusion imaging papers).

Despite its flaws and increasing complexity, the sorting and weighting of manuscripts that define high quality and minimal bias is an important foundation upon which evidence-based medicine is built. This journal will do its part to bring such manuscripts to readers.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    The Scholarly Kitchen. What researchers value from publishers, Canadian survey. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/05/15/what-researchers-value-from-publishers-canadian-survey/. Accessed May 22, 2014
  2. 2.↵
    Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J 1979;121:1193–254
    PubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Sackett DL
    . Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 1989;95(2 suppl):2S–4S.
    PubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Manchikanti L
    . Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations. Pain Physician 2008;11:161–86
    PubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Burns PB,
    2. Rohrich RJ,
    3. Chung KC
    . The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128:305–10
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford levels of evidence 2. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed May 22, 2014
  7. 7.↵
    1. Glasziou P,
    2. Chalmers I,
    3. Rawlins M,
    4. et al
    . When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ 2007;334:349–51
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Smith GCS,
    2. Pell JP
    . Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Int J Prosthodont 2003;19:126–28
  • © 2014 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 35 (8)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 35, Issue 8
1 Aug 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Level 1 EBM Expedited Review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Level 1 EBM Expedited Review
J.S. Ross
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2014, 35 (8) 1448-1449; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4047

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Level 1 EBM Expedited Review
J.S. Ross
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2014, 35 (8) 1448-1449; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4047
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Teaching Lessons by MR CLEAN
  • Coffee Houses and Reading Rooms
  • Comeback Victory
Show more EDITORIALS

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire