ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2026
From Discovery to Verification: A Thirty-Three-Year Analysis of Research Design in Three Leading General Medical Journals, 1992-2024.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has reorganized clinical research around a hierarchy favoring confirmatory designs over hypothesis-generating ones. Earlier analyses rested on single-year snapshots ending in 2008, so whether the shift continued, and at what rate, across the EBM era is unknown. We characterized 33-year trends in design profile and collaboration scale in three leading general medical journals. Methods: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of PubMed publication-type indexing for the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, and JAMA, 1992 to 2024, with numerator and denominator both restricted to the Journal Article publication type. We measured the annual proportion of journal articles tagged as Phase III trials (from 1993, when that tag was introduced), multicenter studies, randomized controlled trials and case reports, and authors per randomized trial. Trends were estimated by binomial generalized linear models (odds ratio (OR) per decade). The Phase III tag was validated against 132 articles. Results: The pooled share of Phase III trials rose from 0.15% in 1993 to 5.67% in 2024 (OR 2.79 per decade, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.59 to 3.00; P < 0.001), and multicenter studies from 4.3% to 12.6% (OR 1.25; P < 0.001). The randomized-trial share rose more modestly, from 11.4% to 13.8% (OR 1.10; P < 0.001). Case reports fell in The Lancet (7.3% to 3.8%; OR 0.78) and JAMA (7.3% to 1.3%; OR 0.63), but not in NEJM (23.0% to 25.7%; OR 0.97; P = 0.08), where stability is accounted for by two standing features, the weekly Case Records and a single-page clinical image series begun in 1993. Case reports of three or more pages fell from 11.3% to 4.2% in NEJM (OR 0.71). Median authors per randomized trial rose from 5 to 10 in 1994-1998 to 19 to 23 in 2020-2024. Conclusions: The leading general medical journals increasingly published large, multi-author, late-phase trials, while the substantive case report contracted in all three. The case report changed in kind, from a vehicle for novel observation to short pedagogical content carrying the same index tag. These trends are consistent with a structural shift from discovery toward verification, with implications for how new hypotheses enter the evidence base.
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.