ArticleSystematic reviews2023
Study results from journals with a higher impact factor are closer to "truth": a meta-epidemiological study.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global scientometric analysis ofVeterinary world · 2026Article
- Insights into research trends on recurrent laryngeal nerve damage in thyroid surgery (1974-2024): a bibliometric review.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- The enigma of journal impact factors: determinants of impact factors for journals in General and Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Anaesthesiology.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Promotion and tenure for medical physicists should be based on article specific measures and not on journal impact factor.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Underrepresentation of atopic dermatitis publications in pediatric journals: a bibliometric analysis.Dermatology reports · 2024Article
- Primary Care for Gestational Diabetes: A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications from 1991 to 2024.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- [Latin American research in heart failure: visual and bibliometric analysis of the last 20 years].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
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
backgroundScientists, physicians, and the general public legitimately expect scholarly publications to give true answers to study questions raised. We investigated whether findings from studies published in journals with higher Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) are closer to truth than findings from studies in less-cited journals via a meta-epidemiological approach.
methodsWe screened intervention reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and sought well-appraised meta-analyses. We used the individual RCT study estimates' relative deviation from the pooled effect estimate as a proxy for the deviation of the study results from the truth. The effect of the JIF on the relative deviation was estimated with linear regression and with local polynomial regression, both with adjustment for the relative size of studies. Several sensitivity analyses for various sub-group analyses and for alternative impact metrics were conducted.
resultsIn 2459 results from 446 meta-analyses, results with a higher JIF were on average closer to "truth" than the results with a lower JIF. The relative deviation decreased on average by -0.023 per JIF (95% CI -0.32 to -0.21). A decrease was consistently found in all sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsOur results indicate that study results published in higher-impact journals are on average closer to truth. However, the JIF is only one weak and impractical indicator among many that determine a studies' accuracy.
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.