Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32210508›Full record

ArticleActa informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH2020

Evaluation of Preclinical and Clinical Studies Published in Medical Journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Methodology Issues.

Slobodan M Jankovic, Izet Masic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Predatory Journals and Publishers - Dilemmas: How to Assess it and How to Avoid it?Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2021
    Article
  6. Inflated Co-authorship Introduces Bias to Current Scientometric Indices.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Methodological Errors in Clinical Studies Published by Medical Journals of Ex-Yugoslav Countries.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2020
    Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Slobodan M JankovicFaculty of Medical Sciences, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia.
Izet MasicAcademy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResults of preclinical and clinical studies in medicine could be trusted only if their design and statistical analysis were appropriate.

aimThe aim of our study was to investigate whether preclinical and clinical studies published in medical journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina satisfy basic requirements for appropriate design and statistical interpretation of data.

methodsPreclinical and clinical studies published in medical journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina were retrieved from the PubMed database, and the sample for analysis was randomly chosen from the retrieved publications. Implementation rate of basic principles of experimental design (local control, randomization and replication) and rate of the most common errors in design of clinical/observational studies was established by careful reading of the sampled publications and their checking against predefined criteria.

resultsOur study showed that only a minority of experimental preclinical studies had basic principles of design completely implemented (7%), while implementation rate of single aspects of appropriate experimental design varied from as low as 12% to as high as 77%. Only one of the clinical/observational studies had none of the errors searched for (2%), and specific errors rates varied from 10% to 89%. Average impact factor of the surveyed studies was around one, and average publication date recent, less than 5 years ago.

conclusionPrevalence of preclinical studies that did not follow completely basic principles of research design, and that of clinical/observational studies with errors are high, raising suspicion to validity of their results. If incorrect and not protected against bias, results of published studies may adversely influence future research.

Indexed as

biascontrol experimentserrorsinternal validityrandomizationreplication

Identifiers

PMID32210508
PMCPMC7085328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.