American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria®: a bibliometric analysis of panel members

Objective To assess the features of panel members involved in the writing of the ACR-AC and identify alignment with research output and topic-specific research publications. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed on the research output of panel members of 34 ACR-AC documents published in 2...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Insights into imaging 2023-07, Vol.14 (1), p.113-113, Article 113
Main Authors: Malhotra, Ajay, Bajaj, Suryansh, Garg, Tushar, Khunte, Mihir, Pahwa, Bhavya, Wu, Xiao, Payabvash, Seyedmehdi, Mukherjee, Suresh, Gandhi, Dheeraj, Forman, Howard P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
American College of Radiology
Appropriate use criteria
Appropriateness criteria
Bibliometrics
Criteria
Diagnostic Radiology
Documents
Imaging
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neuroradiology
Original
Original Article
Panels
Radiology
Ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-2a2565ebe2bfc06f798065f66c876123b3f89a68de3e4ed7b207a85b2fe0366f3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-2a2565ebe2bfc06f798065f66c876123b3f89a68de3e4ed7b207a85b2fe0366f3
container_end_page 113
container_issue 1
container_start_page 113
container_title Insights into imaging
container_volume 14
creator Malhotra, Ajay
Bajaj, Suryansh
Garg, Tushar
Khunte, Mihir
Pahwa, Bhavya
Wu, Xiao
Payabvash, Seyedmehdi
Mukherjee, Suresh
Gandhi, Dheeraj
Forman, Howard P.
description Objective To assess the features of panel members involved in the writing of the ACR-AC and identify alignment with research output and topic-specific research publications. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed on the research output of panel members of 34 ACR-AC documents published in 2021. For each author, we searched Medline to record total number of papers (P), total number of ACR-AC papers (C) and total number of previously published papers that are relevant to the ACR-AC topic (R). Results Three hundred eighty-three different panel members constituted 602 panel positions for creating 34 ACR-AC in 2021 with a median panel size of 17 members. Sixty-eight (17.5%) of experts had been part of ≥10 previously published ACR-AC papers and 154 (40%) were members in ≥ 5 published ACR-AC papers. The median number of previously published papers relevant to the ACR-AC topic was 1 (IQR: 0–5). 44% of the panel members had no previously published paper relevant to the ACR-AC topic. The proportion of ACR-AC papers (C/P) was higher for authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.21) than authors with
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s13244-023-01456-z
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4c6a89a1705041939ad25cf38c2c5861</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4c6a89a1705041939ad25cf38c2c5861</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2832636781</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-2a2565ebe2bfc06f798065f66c876123b3f89a68de3e4ed7b207a85b2fe0366f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks1u1DAUhSMEolXpC7BAkdiwCfg_Dhs0GvFTqRISgrVlO9fBIycOdqbS9KF4CJ4MT1NKywJvbPmc-_n66lTVc4xeYyzFm4wpYaxBhDYIMy6a60fVaRG6hmGEH987n1TnOe9QWZRiKunT6oS2tOOSytPKbEZI3uqp3sYQYIA6uvqL7n0McTjUm3lOcU5eLzBBzvU2-aX49a-fb2tdG2-CjyMshVDrSYdD9vkImPUEoR5hNJDys-qJ0yHD-e1-Vn378P7r9lNz-fnjxXZz2VjO8NIQTbjgYIAYZ5FwbSeR4E4IK1uBCTXUyU4L2QMFBn1rCGq15IY4QFQIR8-qi5XbR71TpelRp4OK2qubi5gGpdPibQDFrNAFhlvEEcMd7XRPuHVUWmK5FLiw3q2seW9G6C1MS9LhAfShMvnvaohXCiOK2w61hfDqlpDijz3kRY0-WwihjCbusyKSEslQx2SxvvzHuov7VMa5ugQVrTy2RFaXTTHnBO6uG4zUMRJqjYQqkVA3kVDXpejF_X_clfwJQDHQ1ZCLNA2Q_r79H-xvkRfC7w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2832636781</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria®: a bibliometric analysis of panel members</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access</source><creator>Malhotra, Ajay ; Bajaj, Suryansh ; Garg, Tushar ; Khunte, Mihir ; Pahwa, Bhavya ; Wu, Xiao ; Payabvash, Seyedmehdi ; Mukherjee, Suresh ; Gandhi, Dheeraj ; Forman, Howard P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Malhotra, Ajay ; Bajaj, Suryansh ; Garg, Tushar ; Khunte, Mihir ; Pahwa, Bhavya ; Wu, Xiao ; Payabvash, Seyedmehdi ; Mukherjee, Suresh ; Gandhi, Dheeraj ; Forman, Howard P.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To assess the features of panel members involved in the writing of the ACR-AC and identify alignment with research output and topic-specific research publications. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed on the research output of panel members of 34 ACR-AC documents published in 2021. For each author, we searched Medline to record total number of papers (P), total number of ACR-AC papers (C) and total number of previously published papers that are relevant to the ACR-AC topic (R). Results Three hundred eighty-three different panel members constituted 602 panel positions for creating 34 ACR-AC in 2021 with a median panel size of 17 members. Sixty-eight (17.5%) of experts had been part of ≥10 previously published ACR-AC papers and 154 (40%) were members in ≥ 5 published ACR-AC papers. The median number of previously published papers relevant to the ACR-AC topic was 1 (IQR: 0–5). 44% of the panel members had no previously published paper relevant to the ACR-AC topic. The proportion of ACR-AC papers (C/P) was higher for authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.21) than authors with &lt; 5 ACR-AC papers (0.11, p  &lt; 0.0001); however, proportion of relevant papers per topic (R/P) was higher for authors with &lt; 5 ACR-AC papers (0.10) than authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.07). Conclusion The composition of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria panels reflects many members with little or no previously published literature on the topic of consideration. Similar pool of experts exists on multiple expert panels formulating imaging appropriateness guidelines. Key Points There were 68 (17.5%) panel experts on ≥ 10 ACR-AC panels. Nearly 45% of the panel experts had zero median number of relevant papers. Fifteen panels (44%) had &gt; 50% of members having zero relevant papers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1869-4101</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1869-4101</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s13244-023-01456-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37395838</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Vienna: Springer Vienna</publisher><subject>American College of Radiology ; Appropriate use criteria ; Appropriateness criteria ; Bibliometrics ; Criteria ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Documents ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Neuroradiology ; Original ; Original Article ; Panels ; Radiology ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Insights into imaging, 2023-07, Vol.14 (1), p.113-113, Article 113</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-2a2565ebe2bfc06f798065f66c876123b3f89a68de3e4ed7b207a85b2fe0366f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-2a2565ebe2bfc06f798065f66c876123b3f89a68de3e4ed7b207a85b2fe0366f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9223-6640</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2832636781/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2832636781?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37395838$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Malhotra, Ajay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bajaj, Suryansh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garg, Tushar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khunte, Mihir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pahwa, Bhavya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Xiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Payabvash, Seyedmehdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mukherjee, Suresh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gandhi, Dheeraj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forman, Howard P.</creatorcontrib><title>American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria®: a bibliometric analysis of panel members</title><title>Insights into imaging</title><addtitle>Insights Imaging</addtitle><addtitle>Insights Imaging</addtitle><description>Objective To assess the features of panel members involved in the writing of the ACR-AC and identify alignment with research output and topic-specific research publications. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed on the research output of panel members of 34 ACR-AC documents published in 2021. For each author, we searched Medline to record total number of papers (P), total number of ACR-AC papers (C) and total number of previously published papers that are relevant to the ACR-AC topic (R). Results Three hundred eighty-three different panel members constituted 602 panel positions for creating 34 ACR-AC in 2021 with a median panel size of 17 members. Sixty-eight (17.5%) of experts had been part of ≥10 previously published ACR-AC papers and 154 (40%) were members in ≥ 5 published ACR-AC papers. The median number of previously published papers relevant to the ACR-AC topic was 1 (IQR: 0–5). 44% of the panel members had no previously published paper relevant to the ACR-AC topic. The proportion of ACR-AC papers (C/P) was higher for authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.21) than authors with &lt; 5 ACR-AC papers (0.11, p  &lt; 0.0001); however, proportion of relevant papers per topic (R/P) was higher for authors with &lt; 5 ACR-AC papers (0.10) than authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.07). Conclusion The composition of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria panels reflects many members with little or no previously published literature on the topic of consideration. Similar pool of experts exists on multiple expert panels formulating imaging appropriateness guidelines. Key Points There were 68 (17.5%) panel experts on ≥ 10 ACR-AC panels. Nearly 45% of the panel experts had zero median number of relevant papers. Fifteen panels (44%) had &gt; 50% of members having zero relevant papers.</description><subject>American College of Radiology</subject><subject>Appropriate use criteria</subject><subject>Appropriateness criteria</subject><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Documents</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Panels</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1869-4101</issn><issn>1869-4101</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ks1u1DAUhSMEolXpC7BAkdiwCfg_Dhs0GvFTqRISgrVlO9fBIycOdqbS9KF4CJ4MT1NKywJvbPmc-_n66lTVc4xeYyzFm4wpYaxBhDYIMy6a60fVaRG6hmGEH987n1TnOe9QWZRiKunT6oS2tOOSytPKbEZI3uqp3sYQYIA6uvqL7n0McTjUm3lOcU5eLzBBzvU2-aX49a-fb2tdG2-CjyMshVDrSYdD9vkImPUEoR5hNJDys-qJ0yHD-e1-Vn378P7r9lNz-fnjxXZz2VjO8NIQTbjgYIAYZ5FwbSeR4E4IK1uBCTXUyU4L2QMFBn1rCGq15IY4QFQIR8-qi5XbR71TpelRp4OK2qubi5gGpdPibQDFrNAFhlvEEcMd7XRPuHVUWmK5FLiw3q2seW9G6C1MS9LhAfShMvnvaohXCiOK2w61hfDqlpDijz3kRY0-WwihjCbusyKSEslQx2SxvvzHuov7VMa5ugQVrTy2RFaXTTHnBO6uG4zUMRJqjYQqkVA3kVDXpejF_X_clfwJQDHQ1ZCLNA2Q_r79H-xvkRfC7w</recordid><startdate>20230703</startdate><enddate>20230703</enddate><creator>Malhotra, Ajay</creator><creator>Bajaj, Suryansh</creator><creator>Garg, Tushar</creator><creator>Khunte, Mihir</creator><creator>Pahwa, Bhavya</creator><creator>Wu, Xiao</creator><creator>Payabvash, Seyedmehdi</creator><creator>Mukherjee, Suresh</creator><creator>Gandhi, Dheeraj</creator><creator>Forman, Howard P.</creator><general>Springer Vienna</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>SpringerOpen</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9223-6640</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230703</creationdate><title>American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria®: a bibliometric analysis of panel members</title><author>Malhotra, Ajay ; Bajaj, Suryansh ; Garg, Tushar ; Khunte, Mihir ; Pahwa, Bhavya ; Wu, Xiao ; Payabvash, Seyedmehdi ; Mukherjee, Suresh ; Gandhi, Dheeraj ; Forman, Howard P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-2a2565ebe2bfc06f798065f66c876123b3f89a68de3e4ed7b207a85b2fe0366f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>American College of Radiology</topic><topic>Appropriate use criteria</topic><topic>Appropriateness criteria</topic><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Documents</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Panels</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Malhotra, Ajay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bajaj, Suryansh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garg, Tushar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khunte, Mihir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pahwa, Bhavya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Xiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Payabvash, Seyedmehdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mukherjee, Suresh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gandhi, Dheeraj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forman, Howard P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (ProQuest Medical &amp; Health Databases)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Insights into imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Malhotra, Ajay</au><au>Bajaj, Suryansh</au><au>Garg, Tushar</au><au>Khunte, Mihir</au><au>Pahwa, Bhavya</au><au>Wu, Xiao</au><au>Payabvash, Seyedmehdi</au><au>Mukherjee, Suresh</au><au>Gandhi, Dheeraj</au><au>Forman, Howard P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria®: a bibliometric analysis of panel members</atitle><jtitle>Insights into imaging</jtitle><stitle>Insights Imaging</stitle><addtitle>Insights Imaging</addtitle><date>2023-07-03</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>113</spage><epage>113</epage><pages>113-113</pages><artnum>113</artnum><issn>1869-4101</issn><eissn>1869-4101</eissn><abstract>Objective To assess the features of panel members involved in the writing of the ACR-AC and identify alignment with research output and topic-specific research publications. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed on the research output of panel members of 34 ACR-AC documents published in 2021. For each author, we searched Medline to record total number of papers (P), total number of ACR-AC papers (C) and total number of previously published papers that are relevant to the ACR-AC topic (R). Results Three hundred eighty-three different panel members constituted 602 panel positions for creating 34 ACR-AC in 2021 with a median panel size of 17 members. Sixty-eight (17.5%) of experts had been part of ≥10 previously published ACR-AC papers and 154 (40%) were members in ≥ 5 published ACR-AC papers. The median number of previously published papers relevant to the ACR-AC topic was 1 (IQR: 0–5). 44% of the panel members had no previously published paper relevant to the ACR-AC topic. The proportion of ACR-AC papers (C/P) was higher for authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.21) than authors with &lt; 5 ACR-AC papers (0.11, p  &lt; 0.0001); however, proportion of relevant papers per topic (R/P) was higher for authors with &lt; 5 ACR-AC papers (0.10) than authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.07). Conclusion The composition of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria panels reflects many members with little or no previously published literature on the topic of consideration. Similar pool of experts exists on multiple expert panels formulating imaging appropriateness guidelines. Key Points There were 68 (17.5%) panel experts on ≥ 10 ACR-AC panels. Nearly 45% of the panel experts had zero median number of relevant papers. Fifteen panels (44%) had &gt; 50% of members having zero relevant papers.</abstract><cop>Vienna</cop><pub>Springer Vienna</pub><pmid>37395838</pmid><doi>10.1186/s13244-023-01456-z</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9223-6640</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1869-4101
ispartof Insights into imaging, 2023-07, Vol.14 (1), p.113-113, Article 113
issn 1869-4101
1869-4101
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4c6a89a1705041939ad25cf38c2c5861
source Open Access: PubMed Central; Publicly Available Content Database; Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access
subjects American College of Radiology
Appropriate use criteria
Appropriateness criteria
Bibliometrics
Criteria
Diagnostic Radiology
Documents
Imaging
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neuroradiology
Original
Original Article
Panels
Radiology
Ultrasound
title American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria®: a bibliometric analysis of panel members
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T13%3A20%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=American%20College%20of%20Radiology%20Appropriateness%20Criteria%C2%AE:%20a%20bibliometric%20analysis%20of%20panel%20members&rft.jtitle=Insights%20into%20imaging&rft.au=Malhotra,%20Ajay&rft.date=2023-07-03&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=113&rft.epage=113&rft.pages=113-113&rft.artnum=113&rft.issn=1869-4101&rft.eissn=1869-4101&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s13244-023-01456-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2832636781%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-2a2565ebe2bfc06f798065f66c876123b3f89a68de3e4ed7b207a85b2fe0366f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2832636781&rft_id=info:pmid/37395838&rfr_iscdi=true