An Evaluation of Impact Factor Bias of Clinical Trials Published in Pain Journals

Pain Practice ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taif Mukhdomi ◽  
James Park ◽  
Mark C. Kendall ◽  
Sean Curran ◽  
Patricia Apruzzese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Factor Bias

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.

Positive Results Bias and Impact Factor in Retina Clinical Trials 2016-2019

Retina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Ankur Parikh ◽  
Jonathan Markle ◽  
Michael Venincasa ◽  
Ajay E. Kuriyan ◽  
Mrinali Gupta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Positive Results

Impact of Consensus Papers versus Randomized Trials in Critical Care Nephrology

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 708-712
Author(s):  
John A. Kellum
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Consensus Conferences ◽  
The Impact

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Reports of consensus conferences are usually valued less than reports of clinical trials even when rigorous methodology is used. However, limited data are available comparing the impact of these 2 methods of shaping clinical practice. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> Compare the publication impact of consensus conferences and clinical trials. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Consensus publications from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) from 2002 through 2017 were identified and classified by subject matter. Randomized trials were identified in the same publication year and subject in journals, starting with the highest impact factor. Both publication types were matched, and total citations were determined for each using Google Scholar. A secondary analysis compared total costs for each publication type. <b><i>Results and Conclusions:</i></b> Seventeen ADQI consensus conference reports and 17 randomized trials were identified. ADQI reports received a similar number of citations per paper (median, interquartile range) compared to randomized trials (132, 54–228; vs. 159, 60–340, <i>p</i> = ns). Similarly, 10 (58.8%) ADQI reports and 10 randomized trials were cited &#x3e;100 times. On average, ADQI reports appeared in journals with lower impact factors compared to clinical trials (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 25.4 ± 27.1; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). The median cost per citation (USD 2017) for ADQI reports was USD 606.01 compared to almost twice this figure, USD 1,182.59, for clinical trials on the same topics (<i>p</i> = 0.09). Despite being published in lower impact factor journals, consensus reports on topics in critical care nephrology, received similar citations to randomized controlled trials published the same year.

The grateful scientist: what determines the presence of acknowledgements in randomised clinical trial publications?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herm J Lamberink ◽  
Christiaan Vinkers ◽  
Willem M. Otte ◽  
Joeri K. Tijdink
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Field ◽  
Research Institution ◽  
Collaborative Efforts ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgical Journals

Objective Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are complex endeavours that demand extensive collaborative efforts from researchers, institutions, and funding partners. Undoubtedly, there is ample reason to acknowledge these efforts and to be grateful for publication of the results. However, some RCTs explicitly express gratitude in an acknowledgment section whereas other do not. We hypothesized that this would be related to author’s gender and religion, medical field, journal, and year of publication. DesignQuantitative analysis of all available full-text randomised clinical trials identified through PubMed.Methods We determined the presence of an acknowledgment section containing explicit words of gratitude in 90,163 full-text publications. The hypotheses were publicly pre-registered before study conduct. We tested the following determinants of the presence of these acknowledgment sections: gender of the first and last author, the percentage of protestant inhabitants in the country of the primary research institution, the year of publication, journal impact factor (JIF), the journal’s medical field (compared to the medical field of surgery). Explorative analyses were performed on the different determinants that were associated with received gratitude in the acknowledgement sections. Main outcome measureThe presence of an acknowledgment section with explicit words of gratitude.Results In total, 28,897 (32%) RCT publications contained an acknowledgement section with explicit words of gratitude. All hypotheses were confirmed, with a higher likelihood of an acknowledgement section with words of gratitude when the first and/or last author was female (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.24-1.31), an increased percentage of protestant inhabitants in the country of the first author’s affiliation (+ 10%; OR = 1.04 95% CI 1.04-1.05), and more recent publication (+ 1 year; OR 1.04 95% CI 1.04-1.05). The journal’s impact factor (- 1 JIF; OR = 0.99 95% CI 0.99-0.99) and RCTs published in surgical journals (OR 0.35 95% CI 0.32-0.38) were associated with a lower likelihood of RCT publications containing words of gratitude. Conclusions Acknowledgement sections with explicit words of gratefulness are more frequently present when researchers are female, from protestant countries, working in non-surgical fields, and published in lower impact factor journals, and this trend has increased over time. To foster a healthy and responsible publication culture, it is important that all individuals, institutions, and groups that have contributed to the research are acknowledged. Credit should go where credit is due, and Christmas is the most suitable period to remind us of the importance of gratitude.

scholarly journals Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lombard ◽  
Anis Gasmi ◽  
Laurent Sulpice ◽  
Karim Boudjema ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

Abstract Objective: To describe the surgical journal position statement on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe the other features of their research transparency promotion. Methods: Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor superior to 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were not included if there were no explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) and if there were no randomized controlled trial (RCT) published between 1 st January 2016 and 1 st January 2019. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy in the instructions for authors. Data sharing policy was detailed in 3 categories, the International committee of medical journal editors (ICMJE) compliant, optional or inexistent. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” policy; a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for RCT. Results: Among the 87 surgical journals eligible, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and of the remaining, 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR=2.48-3.77] and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR=5-20.75]. Data-sharing statement instructions (primary outcome) was retrieved in 41 journals (50%); Data-sharing statement instructions were ICMJE compliant in four cases (4.9%), optional in 45% (n=37) and inexistent in 50% (n=41) of the journals. As for data-sharing statements, no association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (ICMJE-compliant or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with ICMJE allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines. Conclusion: Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

scholarly journals Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lombard ◽  
Anis Gasmi ◽  
Laurent Sulpice ◽  
Karim Boudjema ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

Abstract Objective: To describe the surgical journal position statement on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe the other features of their research transparency promotion. Methods: Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor superior to 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were not included if there were no explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) and if there were no randomized controlled trial (RCT) published between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2018. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy in the instructions for authors. Data sharing policy was detailed in 3 categories, inclusion of data sharing policy mandatory, optional or not available. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” policy; a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for RCT. Results: Among the 87 surgical journals eligible, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and of the remaining, 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR=2.48-3.77] and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR=5-20.75]. Data-sharing statement instructions (primary outcome) was retrieved in 41 journals (50%); Data-sharing statement instructions were mandatory in four cases (4.9%), optional in 45% (n=37) and not available in 50% (n=41) of the journals. As for data-sharing statements, no association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with ICMJE allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines. Conclusion: Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

The Impact of an International Network (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup) for Clinical Research on Global Capacity for Gynecologic Cancer Clinical Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 813-818
Author(s):  
Gavin C.E. Stuart ◽  
Henry C. Kitchener ◽  
Jan B. Vermorken ◽  
Michael J. Quinn ◽  
William Small ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Gynecologic Cancer ◽  
Annual Number ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Global Level ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to demonstrate that the construction of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) has increased collaboration and accrual to high-quality phase 3 trials at a global level.Materials and MethodsThe GCIG is a collaboration of 29 international cooperative clinical trial groups committed to conduct of high-quality phase 3 trials among women with gynecologic cancer. A complete bibliography of the reported phase 3 trials has been developed and is available on the GCIG Web site http://www.gciggroup.com. A “GCIG trial” is a trial in which any 2 or more GCIG member groups are formally involved. We reviewed the output of the GCIG from 1997 to 2015 with respect to member participation and quality of publication (impact factor and citation index). The publications are considered in 3 cohorts, 1997 to 2002, 2003 to 2008, and 2009 to 2014, for the purposes of comparison and progress. A social network map has been developed for these publications to identify how the GCIG has increased capacity for clinical trials globally.ResultsUsing a global map, the number of member groups in the GCIG has increased in each of the 3 periods. The total annual number of publications and citations within the 1997 to 2015 period has increased significantly. The average number of citations per publication is demonstrated in each of the 3 periods. The steady increase in the number of citations is used as a proxy for the impact of the publications. The impact factor of the journal and the number of citations are reported for the 10 most highly cited publications. Finally, using a social networking methodology, networking has visibly and numerically increased in each of the 3 periods.ConclusionsEvidence supports that the construction of the GCIG has increased collaboration and accrual to high-quality phase 3 trials at a global level among women with gynecologic cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document