ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsThree 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 < 5 ACR-AC papers (0.11,p< 0.0001); however, proportion of relevant papers per topic (R/P) was higher for authors with < 5 ACR-AC papers (0.10) than authors with ≥ 5 ACR-AC papers (0.07).ConclusionThe 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 PointsThere 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 > 50% of members having zero relevant papers.