PP48 Risk Of Bias Of Systematic Reviews Connected To Journal Impact Factor?

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 46-46
Author(s):  
Vanesa Huertas Carrera ◽  
Gill Worthy ◽  
Joseph Kleijnen
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Simple Linear Regression ◽  
Potential Association ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

IntroductionSystematic reviews (SRs) are today's cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. However, their risk of bias (ROB) may critically impact their findings. Hence, an impartial assessment of their ROB is paramount to their interpretation. The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential association between the results of the ROB assessment for a series of SRs and their corresponding journal's impact factor as determined by the citation reports.MethodsA sample of over 500 SRs and their corresponding ROB will be employed in this study. The source for these data will be the database KSR Evidence. The corresponding impact factor (IF) for the publishing journal as reported by the Science Citation Index will also be retrieved. The total of ROBIS signaling questions answered as ‘yes’ or ‘probably yes’ will be used to approximate the awarded quality (Quality) for each systematic review. An analysis of the potential correlation between Quality and the IF will be performed with a simple linear regression.ResultsResults will be presented in tables and figures. Preliminary results confirm that a statistically significant association between the suggested variables exists, though this is of low magnitude.ConclusionsFindings confirm that the ROB of an SR and the IF of the publishing journal are correlated.

scholarly journals The 100 Top-Cited Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses on Diabetic Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Yang ◽  
Yao Ma ◽  
Lingmin Chen ◽  
Yuqi Liu ◽  
Yonggang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Science Citation Index Expanded

Objective. The objective of this study was to analyze the 100 top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses on diabetic research. Methods. The Science Citation Index Expanded database was searched to identify top-cited studies on diabetic research up to March 4th, 2020. Studies were analyzed using the following characteristics: citation number, publication year, country and institution of origin, authorship, topics, and journals. Results. The 100 top-cited diabetic systematic reviews/meta-analyses were published in 43 different journals, with Diabetes Care having the highest numbers (n=17), followed by The Journal of the American Medical Association (n=14) and Lancet (n=9). The majority of studies are published in the 2000s. The number of citations ranged from 2197 to 301. The highest number of contributions was from the USA, followed by England and Australia. The leading institution was Harvard University. The hot topic was a risk factor (n=33), followed by comorbidity (n=27). Conclusions. The 100 top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses on diabetic research identify impactful authors, journals, institutes, and countries. It will also provide the most important references to evidence-based medicine in diabetes and serve as a guide to the features of a citable paper in this field.

scholarly journals Microfracture: State of the Art in Cartilage Surgery?

Cartilage ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Frehner ◽  
Jan P. Benthien
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Yearly Average ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

Objective This study is a literature review from 2010 to 2014 concerning the quality of evidence in clinical trials about microfracture in attempt to repair articular cartilage. We have decided to focus on microfracturing, since this seems to be the best documented technique. Interest in evaluation of publication quality has risen in orthopaedic sports medicine recently. Therefore, we think it is necessary to evaluate recent clinical trials being rated for their evidence-based medicine (EBM) quality. We also compared the mean impact factor of the journals publishing the different studies as an indicator of the study’s citation and evaluated for a change over the studied time frame. Design To measure the EBM level, we applied the modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) introduced by Jakobsen. The impact factor, which is a measurement of the yearly average number of citations of articles recently published in that journal, was evaluated according to self-reported values on the corresponding journal’s website. Results We found that the mean CMS has not changed between 2010 and 2014. The mean impact factor has also not changed between 2010 and 2014. The CMS variance was high, pointing to different qualities in the evaluated studies. There is no evidence that microfracturing is superior compared to other cartilage repair procedures. Conclusion Microfracture cannot be seen as an evidence based procedure. Further research needs to be done and a standardization of the operating method is desirable. There need to be more substantial studies on microfracturing alone without additional therapies.

scholarly journals Pearls for Interpreting Neurosurgical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Lessons From a Collaborative Effort

Neurosurgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M Lu ◽  
Christopher S Graffeo ◽  
Avital Perry ◽  
Michael J Link ◽  
Fredric B Meyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cranial Neuralgia ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature have surged in popularity over the last decade. It is our concern that, without a renewed effort to critically interpret and appraise these studies as high or low quality, we run the risk of the quality and value of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery being misinterpreted. Correspondingly, we have outlined 4 major domains to target in interpreting neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the lessons learned by a collaboration of clinicians and academics summarized as 4 pearls. The domains of (1) heterogeneity, (2) modeling, (3) certainty, and (4) bias in neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified as aspects in which the authors’ approaches have changed over time to improve robustness and transparency. Examples of how and why these pearls were adapted were provided in areas of cranial neuralgia, spine, pediatric, and neuro-oncology to demonstrate how neurosurgical readers and writers may improve their interpretation of these domains. The incorporation of these pearls into practice will empower neurosurgical academics to effectively interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses, enhancing the quality of our evidence-based medicine literature while maintaining a critical focus on the needs of the individual patients in neurosurgery.

Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo José Fortes Villas Boas ◽  
Regina Stella Spagnuolo ◽  
Amélia Kamegasawa ◽  
Leandro Gobbo Braz ◽  
Adriana Polachini do Valle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Insufficient Evidence ◽  
Based Medicine
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document