Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31707453›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2020

Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review.

Dafne Port Nascimento, Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez, Amanda Costa Araujo, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

4 authors.

Dafne Port NascimentoMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, São Paulo, SP, CEP 03071-000, Brazil. dafnepn@yahoo.com.br.ORCID 0000-0002-8474-727X
Gabrielle Zoldan GonzalezMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, São Paulo, SP, CEP 03071-000, Brazil.
Amanda Costa AraujoMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, São Paulo, SP, CEP 03071-000, Brazil.
Leonardo Oliveira Pena CostaMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, São Paulo, SP, CEP 03071-000, Brazil.

Funding

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2016/17853-4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyze the association of impact factor of the journals publishing low back pain systematic reviews with whether these journals endorsed the PRISMA recommendations and the reviews methodological quality.

methodsWe searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on January 2018 for all low back pain systematic reviews, published between 2015 and 2017. Our primary outcomes were PRISMA recommendations endorsement by the journal and 2017 journal impact factor. We assessed systematic review methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and reported descriptive statistics. A multivariate linear regression model was built. We assessed 66 systematic reviews published in 42 journals. Thirty-seven journals had an impact factor (mean 4.0, SD 4.8). 55% journals endorsed the PRISMA recommendations. The methodological quality of 75.8% systematic reviews was critically low. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations (ß 3.7; 95% CI 1.2, 6.3), but were not associated with the reviews' methodological quality (ß - 0.3; 95% CI - 4.8, 4.3). LIMITATIONS: Our findings may not be generalized to other study populations and interventions such as medical devices, surgery and medication.

conclusionsThree out of every four published low back pain systematic reviews had critically low methodological quality. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations. Clinicians must know how to critically appraise reviews. Journals' editorial policies should include the assessment of study methodological quality and reporting in the review process of an article. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

Journal Impact FactorLow Back PainSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansLow back painNumerical dataResearch designSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID31707453

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.