ArticlePloS one2015
Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates?
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation of reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data based on RECORD: systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19: A meta-epidemiological study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Pooled it
- Adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 Guidelines in Acute Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- Does your surname undermine your research impact?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Concordance between humans and GPT-4 in appraising the methodological quality of case reports and case series using the Murad tool.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence.The ocular surface · 2023Article
- Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- A Bibliometric analysis of folate receptor research.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Publication integrity in orthopaedic journals: the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) threshold.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2020Article
- Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Epidemiology of systematic reviews in imaging journals: evaluation of publication trends and sustainability?European radiology · 2019Article
- H-index in medicine is driven by original research.Croatian medical journal · 2018Article
- Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2016Article
- Is the Best Evidence Good Enough: Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Meta-Analyses on Depression.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates.
methodsAll SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007-Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided.
results129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5-9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21-25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40-1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.
conclusionThere is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF.
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.