Rationale and study design of the IRENE-trial (NVALT-16): a phase II trial to evaluate iressa rechallenge in advanced NSCLC patients with an activating EGFR mutation who responded to an EGFR-TKI used as first-line or previous treatment.

J. Kuiper,D. Heideman,T. Würdinger,K. Grünberg,H. Groen,E. Smit

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2014.07.008

IF: 4.84

Clinical Lung Cancer

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Evidence-based recommendations for increasing the citation frequency of original articles

Nicole Heßler,Andreas Ziegler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04378-7

IF: 3.801

2022-05-05

Scientometrics

Abstract:Publications and citations are important for career advancement of researchers. Our main aim was to derive recommendations that might increase the citation frequency of authors' work. We examined title and article characteristics of original research articles published in the major medical journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM and PLOS Med (PLOS) between 2011 and 2020, using PubMed and Web of Science. To analyze citation frequencies, we estimated quasi Poisson regression models. The NEJM had by far the shortest titles (9.7 ± 1.8 words). Titles in the other journals were at least 8 words longer on average. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were rarely identifiable by its title in the NEJM (5.3% by title, 63.3% by title plus abstract). BMJ, Lancet and PLOS articles had more frequently active verbs than JAMA and NEJM articles. The citation frequency was higher when articles were open access and when more authors and corporate authors were involved (all p < 0.001), and it was lower when a geography was mentioned (p < 0.001). Titles differed substantially in their characteristics between major medical journals. The NEJM often chose titles for RCTs not following the CONSORT 2010 statement. Several modifiable title and article characteristics were associated with the citation frequency of articles, such as open access of an article. We recommend authors to choose the title carefully to obtain the maximum range for their work.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Empirical analysis of the text structure of original research articles in medical journals

Nicole Heßler,Miriam Rottmann,Andreas Ziegler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240288

IF: 3.7

2020-10-08

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Successful publishing of an article depends on several factors, including the structure of the main text, the so-called introduction, methods, results and discussion structure (IMRAD). The first objective of our work is to provide recent results on the number of paragraphs (pars.) per section used in articles published in major medical journals. Our second objective is the investigation of other structural elements, i.e., number of tables, figures and references and the availability of supplementary material. We analyzed data from randomly selected original articles published in years 2005, 2010 and 2015 from the journals The BMJ, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and PLOS Medicine. Per journal and year 30 articles were investigated. Random effect meta-analyses were performed to provide pooled estimates. The effect of time was analyzed by linear mixed models. All articles followed the IMRAD structure. The number of pars. per section increased for all journals over time with 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.46) pars. per every two years. The largest increase was observed for the methods section (0.29 pars. per year; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.39). PLOS Medicine had the highest number of pars. The number of tables did not change, but number of figures and references increased slightly. Not only the standard IMRAD structure should be used to increase the likelihood for publication of an article but also the general layout of the target journal. Supplementary material has become standard. If no journal-specific information is available, authors should use 3/10/9/8 pars. for the introduction/methods/results/discussion sections.
Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

Ferrán Catalá-López,Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent,Lisa Caulley,Brian Hutton,Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos,David Moher,Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3944-9

IF: 2.728

2020-01-07

Trials

Abstract:Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. Results We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965–2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet ( n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology ( n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine ( n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States ( n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom ( n = 8028 articles), Canada ( n = 4548 articles) and Germany ( n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine ( n = 78 articles), The Lancet ( n = 9 articles) and JAMA ( n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the “Bland-Altman method”) and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). Conclusions Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation.

medicine, research & experimental
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis

Meredith Hays,Mary Andrews,Ramey Wilson,David Callender,Patrick G O'Malley,Kevin Douglas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011082

IF: 3.006

2016-07-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts by five high-impact general medical journals and to assess whether the quality of reporting was homogeneous across these journals.DESIGN: This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study.SETTING: Randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in five high-impact general medical journals.PARTICIPANTS: We used up to 100 RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2014 from each of the following journals: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals IM), The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome was per cent overall adherence to the 19-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Secondary outcomes included per cent adherence in checklist subcategories and assessing homogeneity of reporting quality across the individual journals.RESULTS: Search results yielded 466 abstracts, 3 of which were later excluded as they were not RCTs. Analysis was performed on 463 abstracts (97 from NEJM, 66 from Annals IM, 100 from The Lancet, 100 from The BMJ, 100 from JAMA). Analysis of all scored items showed an overall adherence of 67% (95% CI 66% to 68%) to the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The Lancet had the highest overall adherence rate (78%; 95% CI 76% to 80%), whereas NEJM had the lowest (55%; 95% CI 53% to 57%). Adherence rates to 8 of the checklist items differed by >25% between journals.CONCLUSIONS: Among the five highest impact general medical journals, there is variable and incomplete adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist of randomised trials, with substantial differences between individual journals. Lack of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist by high-impact medical journals impedes critical appraisal of important studies. We recommend diligent assessment of adherence to reporting guidelines by authors, reviewers and editors to promote transparency and unbiased reporting of abstracts.

medicine, general & internal
An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

Shui-Ying Lei,Yan-Ping Dong,Wei-Fang Zhu,Lan-Juan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2771-7

2016-01-01

SpringerPlus

Abstract:Background This study aimed to identify the longitudinal trends and characteristics of the practice of explicitly giving equal credit to multiple authors of publications in public health journals. Manual searches were conducted to identify original research articles, published in five public health journals with the highest IFs according to the “2012 JCR Science Edition” between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013, which awarded equal credit to multiple authors ( Epidemiologic Reviews , Environmental Health Perspectives , the International Journal of Epidemiology , Epidemiology , and the Annual Review of Public Health ). The Instructions to Authors in the five journals were also examined with regard to information about giving equal credit to multiple authors. Findings Statistically significant differences were noted in the annual prevalence in Environmental Health Perspectives , International Journal of Epidemiology , and Epidemiology ( r = 0.753, P = 0.012; r = 0.894, P = 0.000; r = 0.522, P = 0.122, respectively). The first two authors listed in the by-line received equal credit in the majority of articles, but this practice was also extended to authors in nearly every position on the by-line in some publications. The authors given equal credit in articles appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives , International Journal of Epidemiology , and Epidemiology were primarily from European and North American countries. Finally, none of the journals provided specific guidance regarding this practice in their Instructions to Authors. Conclusions An emerging trend of giving equal credit to multiple authors is observed in the public health journals. This practice should be better addressed in the guidance provided by journals to authors.
A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jean Joel R. Bigna,Lewis N. Um,Jobert Richie N. Nansseu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0356-8

2016-10-13

Systematic Reviews

Abstract:BackgroundJournal abstracts including those reporting systematic reviews (SR) should contain sufficiently clear and accurate information for adequate comprehension and interpretation. The aim was to compare the quality of reporting of abstracts of SRs including meta-analysis published in high-impact general medicine journals before and after publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for abstracts (PRISMA-A) released in April 2013.MethodsSRs including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in 2012, 2014, and 2015 in top-tier general medicine journals were searched in PubMed. Data was selected and extracted by two reviewers based on the PRISMA-A guidelines which recommend to include 12 items. The primary outcome was the adjusted mean number of items reported; the secondary outcome was the reporting of each item and factors associated with a better reporting. Adjustment was made for abstract word count and format, number of authors, PRISMA endorsement, and publication on behalf of a group.ResultsWe included 84 abstracts from 2012, 59 from 2014, and 61 from 2015. The mean number of items reported in 2015 (7.5; standard deviation [SD] 1.6) and in 2014 (6.8; SD 1.6) differed and did not differ from that reported in 2012 (7.2; SD 1.7), respectively; adjusted mean difference: 0.9 (95 % CI 0.4; 1.3) and −0.1 (95 % CI −0.6; 0.4). From 2012 to 2014, the quality of reporting was in regression for “strengths and limitations of evidence” and “funding”; contrariwise, it remained unchanged for the others items. Between 2012 and 2015, the quality of reporting rose up for “description of the effect”, “synthesis of results”, “interpretation”, and “registration”; but decreased for “strengths and limitations of evidence”; it remained unchanged for the other items. The overall better reporting was associated with abstracts structured in the 8-headings format in 2014 and abstracts with a word count <300 in 2014 and 2015.ConclusionsNot surprisingly, the quality of reporting did not improve in 2014 and suboptimally improved in 2015. There is still room for improvement to meet the standards of PRISMA-A guidelines. Stricter adherence to these guidelines by authors, reviewers, and journal editors is highly warranted and will surely contribute to a better reporting.

medicine, general & internal
Persistent ethnic disparities in authorship within top European and North American medical journals: a serial cross-sectional analysis

Sarit Kang-Auger,U Vivian Ukah,Jessica Healy-Profitós,Aimina Ayoub,Nathalie Auger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111552

2024-10-09

Abstract:Objectives: We examined the ethnic origin of authors who published research articles in leading medical journals over the past 2 decades. Study design and setting: We carried out a serial cross-sectional analysis of first and last authors who published original research articles in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and New England Journal of Medicine in 2002, 2012, and 2022. The main outcome was the change in proportion of authors over time according to ethnic origin (Anglo, North/West European, South/West European, Asian, Arab and Middle Eastern, African), gender (male, female), and institutional affiliation in percentage points. Results: Most authors were of Anglo descent (44%), although the proportion of non-European authors grew between 2002 and 2022. East Asian, South Asian, and Arab and Middle Eastern last authors accounted for a greater proportion of authors over time, gaining between 3 and 6 percentage points, while African authors made no gains. Gains were gender-specific, with non-European men gaining 8 points as first and last authors, but non-European women gaining 5 points as last authors only. Most non-European authors were affiliated with North American (42.9%) or European (22.4%) institutions, while non-European authors from other institutions did not make meaningful gains over time. Conclusion: Ethnic diversity of authors in leading medical journals has increased somewhat over time, but non-European men account for most of the gains. Non-European women have yet to make comparable advancement as authors.
Impact analysis of primary and secondary research in radiology journals

Mohamed Sobhi Jabal,Noha Hamouda,Mohamed K. Ibrahim,Hassan Kobeissi,Sherief Ghozy,Mostafa A. Shehata,Cem Bilgin,Waleed Brinjikji,David F. Kallmes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110089

IF: 2.42

2024-01-21

Clinical Imaging

Abstract:Introduction Primary and secondary studies are considered the two major research categories. In this study, we examined the scientific and social media impact of primary and secondary publication types in papers published radiological journals during 2010–2020. Materials and methods PubMed publication type tags were used to filter original articles and systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) articles. Clarivate Web of Science was utilized to obtain a list of all radiology journals from the category "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging" in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Automated approach was developed for programmatic extraction of bibliometric and Altmetric yearly citations of each included article using Dimensions API and Altmetric API with Python. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the citation rates between primary and secondary research articles. Results A total of 96,684 published articles from 2010 to 2020 were identified and their meta-data collected. The mean 2-year citation count following publication year was 5.8 for primary research and 10.2 for SR/MA articles ( p < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2020, the mean number of citations per SR/MA article was 51.3 compared to 30.5 per primary research article ( p < 0.001). Mean Altmetric score was 8.2 in SR/MA compared to 3.7 for primary research articles (p < 0.001). Conclusion Secondary research studies have been increasing in impact in both academia and social media compared to primary research. Our results highlight the importance and impact of systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles as a scientifically influential study type in radiology.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Research Design and Statistical Methods in Chinese Medical Journals

Qian Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.283

IF: 11.816

1998-07-15

JAMA

Abstract:CONTEXT: Study design and statistical analyses have improved in journals published in Western countries, but the type of research designs and statistical methods used in medical journals outside Western countries has not been assessed.OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of research designs and statistical techniques used in Chinese medical journals, types of statistical errors present, and trends over a 10-year period.DESIGN: Evaluation of all original articles published in 5 leading journals in 1985 (N = 640) and in 1995 (N = 954).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Research designs and statistical methods.RESULTS: Compared with 1985, significant improvement was seen in 1995; the percentages of original articles reporting clinical trials, prospective studies, or basic science research increased from 18% to 31% (P<.001), the proportion of papers using statistical tests increased from 40% to 60% (P<.001), more sophisticated statistical methods were used, and of those articles using statistics, the proportion using appropriate methods increased from 22% to 46% (P<.001). In both years, the most commonly used statistical methods were t tests and contingency tables. The most common errors were presentation of P values without specifying the test used, use of multiple t tests instead of analysis of variance, and use of unpaired t tests when paired tests were required.CONCLUSIONS: The use of statistical methods in Chinese medical journals research is improving, and by 1995, the frequency of using statistical methods in published articles was similar to the results determined in previous studies of journals. However, the lack of or inappropriate use of statistics remains a serious problem.

medicine, general & internal
Unrecognised dural punctures--revisited.

Shaul Cohen,M. Casciano,Vrunda Bhausar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJOA.2003.08.004

IF: 3.282

International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia

Abstract:
The evolution of research article titles: the case of Journal of Pragmatics 1978–2018

Zhijun LI,Jinfen XU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03244-3

IF: 3.801

2019-10-03

Scientometrics

Abstract:Previous studies seldom investigated the evolution of research article titles in pragmatics. Based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of 650 research article titles, this study depicts the evolutionary trends of research article titles published in the <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">Journal of Pragmatics</em> regarding their length, lexical density, structural constructions and semantic content since the establishment of the journal in 1977. Our findings identified a trend towards longer titles with higher lexical density, an increasing preference for compound constructions over nominal-group and full sentence constructions, and a more prevalent presentation of information about research method/design in addition to the topic in titles over the past four decades. These findings suggest that research article titles published in the journal appear to be diachronically more informative.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal

Helene Retrouvey,Fiona Webster,Toni Zhong,Anna R Gagliardi,Nancy N Baxter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040950

IF: 3.006

2020-10-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives In comparison to quantitative research, the impact of qualitative articles in the medical literature has been questioned by the BMJ; to explore this, we compared the impact of quantitative and qualitative articles published in BMJ. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017. Main outcome measures Bibliometric and altmetric measures of research impact were collected using Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Plum Analytics and ProQuest Altmetric. Bibliometric measures consisted of citation numbers, field weighted citation impact and citation percentile. Altmetric measures consisted of article usage, captures, mentions, readers, altmetric attention score and score percentile. Scores were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank-sum test. Results We screened a total of 7777 articles and identified 42 qualitative articles. Each qualitative article was matched to 3 quantitative articles published during the same year (126 quantitative articles). Citation numbers were not statistically different between the two research types; the median number of citations (google scholar) per quantitative article was 62 (IQR 38–111) versus 58 (IQR 36–85) per qualitative article (p=0.47). Using Plum Analytics, qualitative articles were found to have a significantly higher usage, with a median of 984 (IQR 581–1351) versus 379 (IQR 177–763) for quantitative (p<0.001). The Altmetric Attention Score was higher for quantitative articles at 16 (IQR 7–37) versus qualitative articles at 9 (IQR 5–23, p=0.05), as was the Altmetric Score percentile 93 (IQR 87–96) versus 88 (IQR 76–95; p=0.02). Conclusion Qualitative and quantitative articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017 both have a high impact. No article type was consistently superior in terms of bibliometric or altmetric measures, suggesting that type of article is not the major driver of impact.

medicine, general & internal
An analysis of the titles of papers submitted to the UK REF in 2014: authors, disciplines, and stylistic details

John Hudson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2081-4

IF: 3.801

2016-07-29

Scientometrics

Abstract:In 2014 over 52,000 academics submitted >155,500 journal articles in 36 different disciplines for assessment in the UK’s four-year Research Evaluation Framework (the REF). In this paper the characteristics of the titles of these papers are assessed. Although these varied considerably between the disciplines, the main findings were that: (i) the lengths of the titles increased with the number of authors in almost all disciplines, (ii) the use of colons and question marks tended to decline with increasing author numbers—although there were a few disciplines, such as economics, where the reverse was evident, (iii) papers published later on in the 4-year period tended to have more authors than those published earlier, and (iv), in some disciplines, the numbers of subsequent citations to papers were higher when the titles were shorter and when they employed colons but lower when they used question marks.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
The rise of promotional communicative functions in medical research article abstracts: a diachronic (1940–2022) perspective

Pedro Martín,Isabel León Pérez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01112-x

2023-09-30

Higher Education

Abstract:Academic genres are not static, but they may change according to the values and demands of the particular discourse communities that shape them. This paper explores the research article (RA) abstract, a relevant informative and promotional genre that exhibits the prevalent rhetorical practices of a specific disciplinary community. From a diachronic perspective, our purpose is to examine how these practices have evolved over time. To this end, using a genre-based approach, we have analysed the rhetorical moves and steps of 180 RA abstracts published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine , over a period of nine decades (1940–2022). The findings revealed that the abstracts have increasingly become more promotional in terms of the persuasive rhetorical strategies that the authors use to enhance the contribution of their research. This is seen in the fact that the texts of more recent decades present a growing number of promotional communicative functions, mainly the moves/steps that claim the importance of the research topic and state the implications or significance of research. This study can have pedagogical implications for English for research publication purposes (ERPP) practitioners and early career researchers who seek to publish in international medical journals.

education & educational research
Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals

Matthew J. To,Jennifer Jones,Mohamed Emara,Alejandro R. Jadad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084779

IF: 3.7

2013-12-31

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Inadequate reporting undermines findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study assessed and compared articles published in high-impact general medical and specialized journals.METHODS: Reports of RCTs published in high-impact general and specialized medical journals were identified through a search of MEDLINE from January to March of 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Articles that provided original data on adult patients diagnosed with chronic conditions were included in the study. Data on trial characteristics, reporting of allocation concealment, quality score, and the presence of a trial flow diagram were extracted independently by two reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus or independent adjudication. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative variables. Comparisons between general medical and specialized journals, and trends over time were performed using Chi-square tests.RESULTS: Reports of 284 trials were analyzed. There was a significantly higher proportion of RCTs published with adequate reporting of allocation concealment (p = 0.003), presentation of a trial flow diagram (p<0.0001) and high quality scores (p = 0.038) over time. Trials published in general medical journals had higher quality scores than those in specialized journals (p = 0.001), reported adequate allocation concealment more often (p = 0.013), and presented a trial flow diagram more often (p<0.001).INTERPRETATION: We found significant improvements in reporting quality of RCTs published in high-impact factor journals over the last fifteen years. These improvements are likely attributed to concerted international efforts to improve reporting quality such as CONSORT. There is still much room for improvement, especially among specialized journals.

multidisciplinary sciences
Study design and statistical methods in Indian medical journals

Jaykaran,Paresh Solanki,Deepak Saxena,ND Kantharia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-9234.82983

2011-01-01

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results

Abstract:Aims and Objectives: Types of study designs and statistical method utilized by authors for articles published in foreign journals has been widely documented. Few such attempts are also done for articles published in Chinese and Pakistani Journals but no such attempt has been documented for articles published in Indian Medical Journals. This manuscript is an attempt to appraising articles published in Indian Medical Journals in terms of study designs and statistical methods used. Materials and Methods: All the original articles published in 2009 from 14 PubMed indexed Indian Medical Journals were analyzed for study designs and statistical methods. These journals were Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology (AIAN), Indian Journal of Orthopedics (IJOrtho), Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine (IJCCM), Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL), Indian Journal of Nephrology (IJN), Indian Journal of Dermatology (IJD), Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO), Indian Journal of Urology (IJU), Indian Journal of Anesthesia (IJA), Indian Journal of Psychiatry (IJPsy), Indian Pediatrics (IP), Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR), Indian Journal of Medical Science (IJMS) and Indian Journal of Community Medicine (IJCM). Values are shown as frequency and percentages. Results: Majority of the published articles were based on prospective study designs (60.8%). Clinical trials were as method of study was documented in 12.5% articles. Three most common tests were t test (23.2%), Chi-square test (21.9%) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (10.5%). However, statistical methods were not at all used by 26.2% articles. Conclusions: Knowledge regarding prospective studies and statistical methods related to contingency table, t test and ANOVA needs to be updated to the Undergraduate and Postgraduate students.
Changing trends in clinical research literature on PubMed database from 1991 to 2020

Xiyi Zhao,Hao Jiang,Jianyun Yin,Hongchao Liu,Ruifang Zhu,Shencong Mei,Chang-tai Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00717-9

IF: 4.981

2022-06-20

European Journal of Medical Research

Abstract:Clinical research publications have become the dominant source and basis of clinical evidence-based decision-making. Exploring the type and quantity of clinical research publications in the PubMed database is useful for clarifying the changing trends of clinical research development in recent years. Therefore, a longitudinal analysis of the type and quantity of clinical research publications in the PubMed database over three decades was conducted.

medicine, research & experimental
High impact journal publishing: the devil is in the detail!

B Lawrenz,P Humaidan,C Blockeel,J Garcia-Velasco,HM Fatemi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.103936

IF: 4.567

2024-03-07

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Abstract:Research in medicine is an indispensable tool to advance knowledge and improve patient care. This might be particularly true in the field of human reproduction as it is a relatively new field and treatment options are rapidly evolving. The cornerstone of evidence-based knowledge, leading to evidence-based treatment decisions, is randomized controlled trials as they explore the benefits of new treatment approaches. The study design and performance are crucial and if done correctly, solid conclusions can be drawn and be implemented into daily clinical routines. Dissemination of new findings throughout the scientific community occurs in the form of publications in scientific journals, and the importance of the journal is reflected in part by the impact factor. The peer review process prior to publication is fundamental in the prevention of flaws in the study design. Thus, readers of journals with a high impact factor usually rely on a thorough peer review process and therefore might not question the published data. However, even papers published in high impact journals might not be free of flaws, so the aim of this paper is to encourage readers to be aware of this fact and critically read scientific papers as "the devil lies in the details".

obstetrics & gynecology,reproductive biology
F1000Prime recommended articles and their citations: an exploratory study of four journals

Peiling Wang,Joshua Williams,Nan Zhang,Qiang Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03302-w

IF: 3.801

2019-11-30

Scientometrics

Abstract:Abstract This study examined F1000Prime recommended research and review articles published in Cell, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2010. The analyses included (1) the classifications assigned to the articles; (2) differences in Web of Science (WoS) citation counts over 9 years between the articles with F1000Prime recommendations and the other articles of the same journal; (3) correlations between the F1000Prime rating scores and WoS citation counts; (4) scaled graphic comparisons of the two measures; (5) content analysis of the top 5 WoS cited and top 5 F1000Prime scored NEJM articles. The results show that most of the recommended articles were classified as New Finding, Clinical Trial, Conformation, Interesting Hypothesis, and Technical Advance. The top classifications differred between the medical journals (JAMA, The Lancet, and NEJM) and the biology journal (Cell); for the latter, both New Finding and Interesting Hypothesis occurred more frequently than the three medical journals. The articles recommended by F1000 Faculty members were cited significantly more than other articles of the same journal for the three medical journals, but no significance was found between the two sets of articles in Cell. The correlations between the F1000Prime rating scores and WoS citation counts of the articles in the same journal were significant for the two medical journals (The Lancet and NEJM) and the biology journal (Cell). NEJM showed significances in both the upper quantile (top 50%), and the upper quartile (top 25%) sets. One of the medical journals, JAMA, did not show any significant correlation between the two measures. Despite the significant correlations of the three journals, Min–Max scaled graphic comparisons of the two measures did not reveal any patterns for predicting citation trends by F1000Prime rating scores. The peak citation year of the articles ranged from 2 to 8 years after the publication year for NEJM. Content analysis of the top-cited and top-scored NEJM articles found that highly commendable papers with comments such as “exceptional,” “landmark study,” or “paradigm shift” received varied rating scores. In comparison, some of the results corroborate with previous studies. Further studies are suggested to include additional journals and different years as well as alternative methods. Studies are needed to understand how F1000 Faculty assign ratings and what criteria they use. In addition, it is also worth investigating how F1000Prime users perceive the meanings of the ratings.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Impact of Article Language in Multi-Language Medical Journals - a Bibliometric Analysis of Self-Citations and Impact Factor

Torsten Diekhoff,Peter Schlattmann,Marc Dewey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076816

IF: 3.7

2013-10-17

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: In times of globalization there is an increasing use of English in the medical literature. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of English-language articles in multi-language medical journals on their international recognition--as measured by a lower rate of self-citations and higher impact factor (IF).METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed publications in multi-language journals in 2008 and 2009 using the Web of Science (WoS) of Thomson Reuters (former Institute of Scientific Information) and PubMed as sources of information. The proportion of English-language articles during the period was compared with both the share of self-citations in the year 2010 and the IF with and without self-citations. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to analyze these factors as well as the influence of the journals' countries of origin and of the other language(s) used in publications besides English. We identified 168 multi-language journals that were listed in WoS as well as in PubMed and met our criteria. We found a significant positive correlation of the share of English articles in 2008 and 2009 with the IF calculated without self-citations (Pearson r=0.56, p = <0.0001), a correlation with the overall IF (Pearson r = 0.47, p = <0.0001) and with the cites to years of IF calculation (Pearson r = 0.34, p = <0.0001), and a weak negative correlation with the share of self-citations (Pearson r = -0.2, p = 0.009). The IF without self-citations also correlated with the journal's country of origin--North American journals had a higher IF compared to Middle and South American or European journals.CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a larger share of English articles in multi-language medical journals is associated with greater international recognition. Fewer self-citations were found in multi-language journals with a greater share of original articles in English.

multidisciplinary sciences

Rationale and study design of the IRENE-trial (NVALT-16): a phase II trial to evaluate iressa rechallenge in advanced NSCLC patients with an activating EGFR mutation who responded to an EGFR-TKI used as first-line or previous treatment.

Evidence-based recommendations for increasing the citation frequency of original articles

Empirical analysis of the text structure of original research articles in medical journals

Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis

An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Persistent ethnic disparities in authorship within top European and North American medical journals: a serial cross-sectional analysis

Impact analysis of primary and secondary research in radiology journals

Research Design and Statistical Methods in Chinese Medical Journals

Unrecognised dural punctures--revisited.

The evolution of research article titles: the case of Journal of Pragmatics 1978–2018

Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal

An analysis of the titles of papers submitted to the UK REF in 2014: authors, disciplines, and stylistic details

The rise of promotional communicative functions in medical research article abstracts: a diachronic (1940–2022) perspective

Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals

Study design and statistical methods in Indian medical journals

Changing trends in clinical research literature on PubMed database from 1991 to 2020

High impact journal publishing: the devil is in the detail!

F1000Prime recommended articles and their citations: an exploratory study of four journals

Impact of Article Language in Multi-Language Medical Journals - a Bibliometric Analysis of Self-Citations and Impact Factor