Article Types

European Radiology
European Radiology
 Insights into Imaging
Insights into Imaging
 European Radiology Experimental
European Radiology Experimental
 European Radiology Breast
European Radiology Breast
 European Radiology Cardiovascular and Thoracic
European Radiology Cardiovascular and Thoracic
 European Society of Radiology
European Society of Radiology
Article Types
Original Article
Review (including Narrative Review)
Technical Developments
Guideline
Statement
Methodology / Study design
Letter to the Editor
One Case Three Lessons

Original Article

Original articles should report on original primary research within the scope of the journal. For studies dealing with diagnostic accuracy, authors should follows the STARD statement, for observational studies (e.g., cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies), the STROBE statement; for randomized controlled trials, the CONSORT statement.

*Systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be submitted as original articles; permitted word count is 5,000 words and max. 12 figures.
  1. Title

Article titles are the first point of contact with the reader. They should be as short and catchy as possible but include as many details as needed to grasp the essence of your work. It is highly recommended that tiles have no more than 15 words.

 

  1. Abstract

The word limit of the abstract is 250 words. Use the following structure and provide details on:

Objectives
  • Main objective (the problem which should be solved) and context of the study.
Materials &
Methods
  • Study design
    Modalities/Interventions
  • Data collection
    Participations
Results
  • Describe the outcome of the study. Present data as concisely as possible.
Conclusion
  • Must address the problem noted as the objective and be derived from the results.
  • Do not elaborate on the importance of the study or other implications.

 

Tips
ⓘ According to the type of the study, you are advised to consult the following abstract checklists: STARD, STROBE, PRISMA-DTA, PRISMA, TRIPOD, CONSORT.

 

  1. Key Points

Must have:

  1. Question (20–25 words) – Explain the unmet need/clinical problem your study addresses
  2. Findings (20–25 words) – Objectively summarize your main result
  3. Relevance Statement (maximum 40 words) – summarize the benefit for the patient and/or clinical relevance of the study

No use of abbreviations that are not fully spelled out is allowed (exceptions: CT, MR, MRI, PET, US, BI-RADS, LI-RADS, PI-RADS, or other very common, non-subspecialty, abbreviations).

Avoid hypotheticals and vague language (e.g., ‘could’, ‘might’, ‘can in future’, etc.).

Avoid opinions or extrapolations that are not proven by the study.

Do not copy sentences already used in the main text or abstract.

 

  1. Introduction

Not exceeding 400 words.

Include short paragraphs (2–3 sentences each) on the following:

  • Specific position of the question (no general statements on the disease): include a summary of the open scientific questions.
  • Purpose of the investigation: what is the specific problem or gap in knowledge being addressed, to what extent the literature tried to solve it, and what is its relevance in the current clinical context?
  • How do you plan to solve this problem?

 

  1. Material and methods

This section should be given in sufficient detail to permit repetition of the experimental work. Adherence to applicable reporting guidelines (see EQUATOR network or CLAIM for artificial intelligence papers) is strongly recommended.

 

Must have:

  • The first sentence should address institutional review board (IRB) approval and patient informed consent, including the reference to human and animal rights declarations and regulations.
  • A clear statement of whether the study is retrospective or prospective.
  • Date ranges of the study, patient enrolment, and retrieval method.
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria, consecutive or random selection.
  • Description of the index test and reference standard (optionally in a dedicated table).
  • Explanation of how the evaluation was performed.
  • Mention of any utilised instruments or drugs (including contrast) with trade names, manufacturer’s name in parentheses (do not include the country of origin).
  • Statistical methods used to analyse the data.

  

  1. Results

The results section should describe the outcome of the study. Data should be presented as concisely as possible.

 

Must have:

  • Use the first sentence to describe the final cohort after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria described in the methods.
  • Use Figure 1 to represent the flowchart of the study, from initial retrieval to final study cohort.
  • Summarise the demographics of your study sample, ideally, presented in a
  • Use tables and figures to illustrate your findings.
  • Make efforts to improve legibility of the results, exposing them in a simple and logical manner.
  • Report all collected statistical analyses, not only the positive findings.

 

  1. Discussion

The discussion should be an interpretation of the results and their significance with reference to work by other authors. It should be written in clear and concise language using the following structure:

  • 1st paragraph: Summarise and interpret the results in a simple manner.
  • 2nd paragraph: Compare your findings with the existing literature, background, and any useful comments.
  • 3rd paragraph: Outline biases and limitations, explaining in detail what the limitations are and how these were mitigated or can be addressed in the potential future studies.
  • 4th paragraph: Include a short and straightforward conclusion, including a statement on the clinical implications/relevance of your study. Support your conclusion with the main results of your study.

Review (including Narrative Review)

Review articles are summaries of the existing literature in specific research areas within the scope of the journal.

  1. Title

Titles should be concise and self-explanatory but detailed enough to adequately reflect the topic of interest.

 

  1. Abstract

Max. 250 words:

The abstract of a Review is not required to be structured. It should however, adequately and clearly summarize the key message of the review article.

 

  1. Keywords

5 MeSH keywords

 

  1. Introduction

The introduction should:

  • Introduce the topic including its context or background.
  • Explain the relevance of the topic and highlight its clinical value.
  • State the objectives of the review, including the main aspects to be addressed.
  • Inclusion criteria for the articles summarized in the review should be clearly reported.

 

  1. Headings and subheadings

The review should be structured with headings and subheadings, addressing and explaining the main aspects of the review topic.

 

  1. Conclusion

The conclusion should provide a summary of the key insights of the reviewed literature, and a “take-home” message. It should consider the review’s possible implication on policy or practice.  It should also address current limitations of the reviewed studies and identify research gaps, proposing further direction for future investigations.

Technical Developments

A Technical Developments manuscript should present a new or modified method for radiological examination or intervention, a device, hardware design, software tool or computational method within the scope of the journal. The aim of the manuscript is to show innovation in the approach or implementation.

  1. Title
    Article titles are the first point of contact with the reader. They should be as short and catchy as possible but include as many details as needed to grasp the essence of your work.

 

  1. Abstract
    The abstract of a Technical Developments article is not required to be structured into Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, and Conclusions. However, it should summarize the key issues of the article.

 

  1. Keywords
    5 MeSH keywords

 

  1. Key points
    3 key points that clearly describe the technical innovation, the problem or need it addresses, and its practical of expected impact or implications.

 

  1. Introduction
    One or two background paragraphs, then define the aim(s) of the work.

 

  1. Materials and methods

  1. Results

  1. Discussion
    Should include a final paragraph of conclusions.

Guideline

Guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature with a formal and transparent development process and necessitate grading of the evidence upon which they base conclusions and recommendations. These papers present recommendations in a formal way intended to change clinical practice.

Before starting to work on the literature search, it is recommended to follow the PICO process to formulate your clinical question.

Literature reviews must include an evaluation of the quality of the literature—see the example table below.

During the creation of guidelines papers, it is strongly recommended to consider including input from a wide range of experts, such as non-radiologist medical specialists, physicists, radiographers/technologists/technicians, epidemiologists, economists, patient advocates, etc.  This can be done by involving them as authors or including them in an advisory capacity. Their input will strengthen the scientific rigor of the final document, as well as improving the acceptance and adoption of any conclusions made.

  1. Title

Titles should be concise, explaining the topic or disease of interest, and may include the name of any relevant group/society endorsing the guidance.

Titles should be self-explanatory and agreed with the Editor before publication.

 

  1. Abstract

Max. 250 words:

  • Include one sentence on the topic or clinical problem being addressed.
  • Include the scope/clinical target group.
  • Briefly list highlights and/or relevant changes from prior guidelines.
  • Briefly explain potential clinical benefits and limitations of the proposed guidelines.
  • The abstract should conclude with 1-2 sentences explaining how readers can best implement the information in their practice if relevant.

 

  1. Keywords

5 MeSH keywords

 

  1. Key points

Summarize up to 3 key recommendations or changes from previous guidelines/recommendations in a single sentence each.

 

  1. Introduction

Set the stage and explain the need for the guidelines/recommendations (max 200 words). Explain the topic background and problem being addressed, use of the PICO format for questions (here) is recommended.

 

  1. Methodology

Include a detailed methodology of how guidelines/recommendations were generated.

Consider including in the methodology:

  • How was your systematic literature review performed and by whom?
  • How was the class of evidence determined, where appropriate?
  • How were the guidelines/recommendations formulated? If diverse opinions existed these should be noted and may be included in an online supplement.
  • Was there a period of broader evaluation by subspecialists, e.g., an external expert review panel, or open for comments from patients or the public?

 

  1. Recommendations
  • Consider that guidelines for different areas of clinical assessment or intervention (e.g., screening tests, diagnostic imaging, interventional therapies) may require different levels of evidence.

 

All guideline papers must include a table in the format below.

Table 1: Table format for guideline papers.

Recommendations for *OVERALL CLINICAL ISSUE

*e.g., Intravenous contrast media extravasation

Class of Evidence

i.e., the calibre of research upon which the recommendation is based, see the above Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Certainty of Evidence

i.e., authors’ confidence in the evidence used and the recommendation given, see Martí-Bonmatí et al.

Recommendations for*CLINICAL ISSUE 1

*e.g., Recommendations for recognising and diagnosis contrast media extravasation

Recommendation 1

e.g., During contrast media infusion, observe for any alerts on the contrast injection system and observe the patient for signs of distress. Observe monitoring scans for expected contrast arrival and completed scans for enhancement

 I High

Recommendation 2

When contrast media extravasation occurs, the affected area should be delineated

 I High

Recommendation 3

Instruct the patient to report any pain or swelling, during or after injection

 IIa Low

Recommendations for *CLINICAL ISSUE 2

*e.g., Recommendations for prevention and minimisation measures for contrast media extravasation
Recommendation 1 I Moderate
Recommendation 2 IIb Low
Recommendations for *CLINICAL ISSUE 3*
Recommendation 1 III Low


Adapted and paraphrased from: Roditi, G., Khan, N., van der Molen, A.J. et al. Intravenous contrast medium extravasation: systematic review and updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee Guidelines. Eur Radiol 32, 3056–3066 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08433-4. This table has been adapted from Roditi et al. and does not necessarily reflect their views/findings. It is for example only.

 

Additional information that provides relevant details, such as the incorporation of Evidence to Decision Framework elements, or if a recommendation is a change to a prior guideline, may be included in this table as appropriate.

It is recognised that there may be heterogeneity in the class and certainty of evidence in many clinical areas, including areas where technological advances or other factors make practice recommendations self-evident. However, the expectation for guideline papers is that they should contain at least some basis in moderate- or high-level evidence.

Opinions based on low levels of evidence should be explicitly noted and explained in detail. The intent of guideline papers is to publish guidance in areas backed by robust evidence and to encourage further research in areas where there is an absence or paucity of available evidence.

 

  1. Limitations

Explain limitations and future trials that need to be undertaken.

 

  1. Conclusion
  • Be very specific regarding which patient group(s) may benefit from which type of imaging or intervention the most, based on current evidence.
  • Explain what recommended follow-up should be included in the respective imaging reports.
  • Consider including a few sentences that explain the guidelines or recommendations in common language for patients.

Statement

Statements present a public position by a group of experts or societies within the imaging community. They generally put forth their view on existing evidence to direct future research or inform clinical practice on topics such as health services, health care management, public health, and health policy in radiology. Authors are expected to integrate findings, ideas and/or conceptual frameworks from a variety of sources in a clear and balanced way for the professional improvement of the imaging community.

Methodology / Study design

Methodology/ Study Design submissions are intended to introduce new approaches, including innovative study designs or methods for data presentation and statistical analysis. The method described may either be completely new or may offer a refinement of an existing method. These articles should emphasize how research is done—highlighting innovations that can improve scientific rigor, reproducibility, and interpretability.

  1. Title
    Article titles are the first point of contact with the reader. They should be as short and catchy as possible but include as many details as needed to grasp the essence of your work.

 

  1. Abstract
    The Abstract should briefly summarize the novel proposed method(s) or study design/protocol, preliminary results (if any), and conclusions. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract.

 

  1. Keywords
    5 MeSH keywords

 

  1. Key points
    3 key points that clearly describe the novelty of the method(s) or the study/design.

 

  1. Introduction
    After one or two background paragraphs, define the aim(s) of the work in terms of methodological novelty or study design/protocol)

 

  1. Materials and methods

  1. Preliminary (or expected) results

  1. Discussion (including a final paragraph of conclusions)

 

Letter to the Editor

Letters to the Editor point to facts or other published articles that require clarification, explanation, or discussion.

Letters to the Editor may be edited for clarity or length and may be subject to peer review at the Editor’s discretion. They may undergo peer review.

One Case Three Lessons

One Case – Three Lessons uses a single case as a starting point to explore broader lessons for clinical practice. Rather than focusing on image interpretation, authors should provide an in-depth discussion and targeted review of overarching, cross-disciplinary themes – such as patient safety and error prevention, multidisciplinary communication, health ethics, decision-support pitfalls, radiologist–patient interaction, and workflow or system-based challenges – structured explicitly around three key lessons. One Case – Three Lessons aims to foster reflective practice and promote continuous improvement within the radiological community.

One Case – Three Lessons submission should adhere to the overall manuscript requirements as outlined by the journal. However, the manuscript should be explicitly structured around three key lessons, with the discussion forming the core of the manuscript.

  1. Title:

The title should clearly reflect the broader learning focus, not just the diagnosis.

  1. Abstract (structured or unstructured):

The abstract should include a concise description of the clinical case, the rationale for its educational value and a summary of the three key lessons.

  1. Introduction:

The introduction should:

  • Provide a concise description of the clinical case
  • Explain why the case is relevant beyond its specific diagnosis
  • Briefly introduce the three key lessons that will be explored (reserving detailed analysis for the discussion section)
  1. Case description:

Succinctly present the clinical scenario, imaging findings, and outcome. Focus on details essential to understanding the subsequent discussion and avoid excessive emphasis on image interpretation unless directly relevant to the lessons. Figures may be included, but they should not dominate the manuscript.

  1. Discussion (core of the manuscript):

The Discussion is the central component of the manuscript and should be explicitly structured around three clearly labeled lessons. The emphasis should be on reflection, synthesis, and applicability, rather than case repetition.

Suggested Subheadings:

  • Lesson 1: [Clear, descriptive heading]
  • Lesson 2: [Clear, descriptive heading]
  • Lesson 3: [Clear, descriptive heading]

For each lesson, authors should:

  • Discuss the key learning point(s) in-depth emphasizing its relevance to broader clinical and radiological practice
  • Include a critical review of relevant literature, guidelines, or evidence where appropriate
  • Highlight implications for patient care, professional behavior, systems, or workflow

  1. Key lessons summary:

Authors are strongly encouraged to include a table, boxed summary, or highlight panel that clearly represents the three lessons (incl. practical take home messages) for quick reference.

 

  1. Conclusion:

The conclusion should briefly summarize the case in context, restate the three lessons and emphasize their relevance for daily radiological practice and/or professional development.