Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28578503›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2017

Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study.

Usama Ahmed Ali, Beata M M Reiber, Joren R Ten Hove, Pieter C van der Sluis, Hein G Gooszen, Marja A Boermeester, Marc G Besselink

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Usama Ahmed AliDepartment of Surgery, G4-190, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Beata M M ReiberDepartment of Surgery, G4-190, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. bmmreiber@gmail.com.
Joren R Ten HoveDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pieter C van der SluisDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hein G GooszenCenter for Evidence Based Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marja A BoermeesterDepartment of Surgery, G4-190, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, G4-190, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe journal impact factor (IF) is often used as a surrogate marker for methodological quality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relation between the journal IF and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

methodsSurgical RCTs published in PubMed in 1999 and 2009 were identified. According to IF, RCTs were divided into groups of low (<2), median (2-3) and high IF (>3), as well as into top-10 vs all other journals. Methodological quality characteristics and factors concerning funding, ethical approval and statistical significance of outcomes were extracted and compared between the IF groups. Additionally, a multivariate regression was performed.

resultsThe median IF was 2.2 (IQR 2.37). The percentage of 'low-risk of bias' RCTs was 13% for top-10 journals vs 4% for other journals in 1999 (P < 0.02), and 30 vs 12% in 2009 (P < 0.02). Similar results were observed for high vs low IF groups. The presence of sample-size calculation, adequate generation of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis were independently associated with publication in higher IF journals; as were multicentre trials and multiple authors.

conclusionPublication of RCTs in high IF journals is associated with moderate improvement in methodological quality compared to RCTs published in lower IF journals. RCTs with adequate sample-size calculation, generation of allocation or intention-to-treat analysis were associated with publication in a high IF journal. On the other hand, reporting a statistically significant outcome and being industry funded were not independently associated with publication in a higher IF journal.

Indexed as

Journal Impact FactorRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignHumansImpact factorMethodologic quality and randomized controlled surgical trials

Identifiers

PMID28578503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.