Changes in the American Interventional Radiology Literature: Comparison over a 10-Year Time Period

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the changes that occurred regarding interventional radiologic research in the major American radiology journals between 1992–1993 and 2002–2003.

Methods

Articles published in three major American radiology journals (Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, and Radiology) during two distinct 24-month time periods (1992–1993 and 2002–2003) were evaluated. All articles judged to be pertinent to the interventional radiologic community were included. Investigations included in journal subheadings other than “interventional” or “vascular radiology” were included if the emphasis of the article was on a vascular imaging modality or peripheral intervention. Exclusions included: case reports, technical reports, letters to the editor, breast interventions, and primary neurointerventions. Data were collected regarding the affiliations of the primary author (nationality, hospital type, department); primary category of interest of the investigation; funding information; and study design variables. Two-by-two chi-squared statistical analyses were performed comparing the variables from the early and late data sets.

Results

A total of 405 articles met the inclusion criteria for the early data set (1992–1993); 488 articles met the inclusion criteria for the late data set (2002–2003). Variables that demonstrated a statistically significant decrease from the early data set to the late data set included: articles in which the primary author was from a department of radiology (91.1% vs. 86.3%; p < 0.025); articles written by a primary author who was American (69.4% vs. 44.6%; p < 0.001); and articles with a primary category of investigation that had a nonvascular intervention focus (22.7% vs. 11.9%; p < 0.001). Variables that demonstrated a statistically significant increase from the early data set to the late data set included primary authors from Western Europe (18.0% vs. 30.1%; p < 0.001) and Asia (6.6% vs. 18.4%; p < 0.001), the primary field of investigation, with significant increases noted for primary cancer interventions (6.5% vs. 13.3%; p < 0.001), gynecologic interventions (0.2% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001), stent-grafts (0 vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001), and spine interventions (0 vs. 1.8%; p < 0.01). Studies receiving funding also demonstrated a significant increase when comparing the early and late data sets (11.3% vs. 23.0%, respectively; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Articles published in the American radiologic literature have changed significantly over the past 10 years. Primary authors are more likely to be nonradiologists and less likely to be American. Investigations dealing primarily with nonvascular interventions are less common; however, some forms of intervention (particularly cancer interventions) are seen more frequently in the literature. The percentage of funded projects has more than doubled in the same time frame.