ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012
The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Harmonizing post-market surveillance of prescription drug misuse: a systematic review of observational studies using routinely collected data (2000-2013).Drug safety · 2015Pooled it
- "Best fit" framework synthesis: refining the method.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Pooled it
- Evidence surveillance for a living clinical guideline: Case study of the Australian stroke guidelines.Health information and libraries journal · 2025Article
- Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews: protocol for a systematic methodological review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Levels of Evidence in Rhinology and Skull Base Surgery Research.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2021Review
- Identifying and resolving the frustrations of reviewing the improvement literature: The experiences of two improvement researchers.BMJ open quality · 2019Article
- Article
- A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers.Systematic reviews · 2015Article
- The role of open access in reducing waste in medical research.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
- How do medical doctors use a web-based oncology protocol system? A comparison of Australian doctors at different levels of medical training using logfile analysis and an online survey.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Article
- Uptake of a web-based oncology protocol system: how do cancer clinicians use eviQ cancer treatments online?BMC cancer · 2013Article
- Searching for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on exercise. A descriptive study.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the degree of scatter of reports of randomised trials and systematic reviews, and how the scatter differs among medical specialties and subspecialties.
designCross sectional analysis. DATA SOURCE: PubMed for all disease relevant randomised trials and systematic reviews published in 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials and systematic reviews of the nine diseases or disorders with the highest burden of disease, and the broader category of disease to which each belonged.
resultsThe scatter across journals varied considerably among specialties and subspecialties: otolaryngology had the least scatter (363 trials across 167 journals) and neurology the most (2770 trials across 896 journals). In only three subspecialties (lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hearing loss) were 10 or fewer journals needed to locate 50% of trials. The scatter was less for systematic reviews: hearing loss had the least scatter (10 reviews across nine journals) and cancer the most (670 reviews across 279 journals). For some specialties and subspecialties the papers were concentrated in specialty journals; whereas for others, few of the top 10 journals were a specialty journal for that area. Generally, little overlap occurred between the top 10 journals publishing trials and those publishing systematic reviews. The number of journals required to find all trials or reviews was highly correlated (r = 0.97) with the number of papers for each specialty/subspecialty.
conclusionsPublication rates of speciality relevant trials vary widely, from one to seven trials per day, and are scattered across hundreds of general and specialty journals. Although systematic reviews reduce the extent of scatter, they are still widely scattered and mostly in different journals to those of randomised trials. Personal subscriptions to journals, which are insufficient for keeping up to date with knowledge, need to be supplemented by other methods such as journal scanning services or systems that cover sufficient journals and filter articles for quality and relevance. Few current systems seem adequate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.