Dataset Information

Methodological quality of preclinical stroke studies is not required for publication in high-impact journals.

ABSTRACT: Omitting quality characteristics in animal stroke studies leads to an overestimation of the efficacy of candidate stroke drugs. Nevertheless, the methodological quality of preclinical stroke studies is often limited. As publishing of research results in high-impact journals is an important motivation for scientists, we analyzed whether study quality predicts high-impact publishing. Animal stroke studies of neuroprotective drugs that were recently investigated in clinical phase II/III trials were included in the analysis. Data on the study quality and other important study characteristics were extracted. Regression analyses were performed to estimate the effect of the study characteristics on the journal's impact factor. We identified 117 studies that investigated 12 different drugs. Study quality was not associated with the impact factor before (beta=-0.2, P=0.50) and after adjustment for other study characteristics (beta=-0.3, P=0.19). There was a significant association of the number of investigated mechanisms and applied techniques with the impact factor (beta=1.4, P<0.0001). Our findings show that the quality of animal experimental stroke studies is not relevant for publishing in high-impact journals. The major predictor for accepting preclinical stroke studies in high-impact journals is the complexity of the investigation into a stroke drug's mode of action.

SUBMITTER: Minnerup J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2949256 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methodological quality of preclinical stroke studies is not required for publication in high-impact journals.

Minnerup Jens J Wersching Heike H Diederich Kai K Schilling Matthias M Ringelstein Erich Bernd EB Wellmann Jürgen J Schäbitz Wolf-Rüdiger WR

Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 20100602 9

Omitting quality characteristics in animal stroke studies leads to an overestimation of the efficacy of candidate stroke drugs. Nevertheless, the methodological quality of preclinical stroke studies is often limited. As publishing of research results in high-impact journals is an important motivation for scientists, we analyzed whether study quality predicts high-impact publishing. Animal stroke studies of neuroprotective drugs that were recently investigated in clinical phase II/III trials were ...[more]

PMID: 20517323

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextOver the past three decades, industry sponsored research expanded in the United States. Financial incentives can lead to potential conflicts of interest (COI) resulting in underreporting of negative study results.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that over the three decades, there would be an increase in: a) reporting of conflict of interest and source of funding; b) percentage of randomized control trials c) number of patients per study and d) industry funding.Data sources and study selectionOriginal articles published in three calendar years (1988, 1998, and 2008) in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were collected.Data extractionStudies were reviewed and investigational design categorized as prospective and retrospective clinical trials. Prospective trials were categorized into randomized or non-randomized and single-center or multi-center trials. Retrospective trials were categorized as registries, meta-analyses and other studies, mostly comprising of case reports or series. Study outcomes were categorized as positive or negative depending on whether the pre-specified hypothesis was met. Financial disclosures were researched for financial relationships and profit status, and accordingly categorized as government, non-profit or industry sponsored. Studies were assessed for reporting COI.Results1,671 original articles were included in this analysis. Total number of published studies decreased by 17% from 1988 to 2008. Over 20 year period, the proportion of prospective randomized trials increased from 22 to 46% (p < 0.0001); whereas the proportion of prospective non-randomized trials decreased from 59% to 27% (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the percentage of prospective randomized multi-center trials from 11% to 41% (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a reduction in non-randomized single-center trials from 47% to 10% (p < 0.001). Proportion of government funded studies remained constant, whereas industry funded studies more than doubled (17% to 40%; p < 0.0001). The number of studies with negative results more than doubled (10% to 22%; p<0.0001). While lack of funding disclosure decreased from 35% to 7%, COI reporting increased from 2% to 84% (p < 0.0001).ConclusionImproved reporting of COI, clarity in financial sponsorship, increased publication of negative results in the setting of larger and better designed clinical trials represents a positive step forward in the scientific publications, despite the higher percentage of industry funded studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A crucial element in the systematic review (SR) methodology is the appraisal of included primary studies, using tools for assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias (RoB). SR authors can conduct sensitivity analyses to explore whether their results are sensitive to exclusion of low quality studies or a high RoB. However, it is unknown which tools do SR authors use for assessing quality/RoB, and how they set threshold for quality/RoB in sensitivity analyses. The aim of this study was to assess quality/RoB assessment tools, the types of sensitivity analyses and quality/RoB thresholds for sensitivity analyses used within SRs published in high-impact pain/anesthesiology journals. METHODS:This was a methodological study. We analyzed SRs published from January 2005 to June 2018 in the 25% highest-ranking journals within the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "Anesthesiology" category. We retrieved the SRs from PubMed. Two authors independently screened records, full texts, and extracted data on quality/RoB tools and sensitivity analyses. We extracted data about quality/RoB tools, types of sensitivity analyses and the thresholds for quality/RoB used in them. RESULTS:Out of 678 analyzed SRs, 513 (76%) reported the use of quality/RoB assessments. The most commonly reported tools for assessing quality/RoB in the studies were the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment (N?=?251; 37%) and Jadad scale (N?=?99; 15%). Meta-analysis was conducted in 451 (66%) of SRs and sensitivity analysis in 219/451 (49%). Most commonly, sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the influence of study quality/RoB (90/219; 41%) on the results. Quality/RoB thresholds used for sensitivity analysis for those studies were clearly reported in 47 (52%) articles that used them. The quality/RoB thresholds used for sensitivity analyses were highly heterogeneous and inconsistent, even when the same tool was used. CONCLUSIONS:A quarter of SRs reported using quality/RoB assessments, and some of them cited tools that are not meant for assessing quality/RoB. Authors who use quality/RoB to explore the robustness of their results in meta-analyses use highly heterogeneous quality/RoB thresholds in sensitivity analyses. Better methodological consistency for quality/RoB sensitivity analyses is needed.

Project description:ObjectivesPublished negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals.DesignA systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science focus and impact factor >1 between 2011 and 2013. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. The results were considered positive if the primary outcome was statistically significant and negative otherwise. When the primary outcome was not specified, we used data on the first outcome reported in the history followed by the results section. Differences in various methodological quality domains between positive versus negative studies were assessed by Fisher's exact test.ResultsSeven journals with 259 comparative studies were included in this SR. 24% (63/259) were RCTs, 24% (63/259) cohort studies, and 49% (128/259) case-control studies. 53% (137/259) of studies explicitly reported the primary outcome. Five studies did not report sufficient data to enable us to determine if results were positive or negative. Statistical significance was determined by p value in 78.3% (199/254), CI in 2.8% (7/254), both p value and CI in 11.8% (30/254), and only descriptive in 6.3% (16/254) of studies. The overall methodological quality was poor and no statistically significant differences between reporting of methodological quality were detected between studies with positive versus negative findings.ConclusionsThere was no difference in the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies. However, the uneven reporting of positive versus negative studies (72% vs 28%) indicates a publication bias in Indian medical journals with an impact factor of >1.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether methodological and reporting quality are associated with surrogate measures of publication impact in the field of dementia biomarker studies.MethodsWe assessed dementia biomarker studies included in a previous systematic review in terms of methodological and reporting quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD), respectively. We extracted additional study and journal-related data from each publication to account for factors shown to be associated with impact in previous research. We explored associations between potential determinants and measures of publication impact in univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression analyses.Outcome measuresWe aimed to collect data on four measures of publication impact: two traditional measures-average number of citations per year and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal and two alternative measures-the Altmetric Attention Score and counts of electronic downloads.ResultsThe systematic review included 142 studies. Due to limited data, Altmetric Attention Scores and electronic downloads were excluded from the analysis, leaving traditional metrics as the only analysed outcome measures. We found no relationship between QUADAS and traditional metrics. Citation rates were independently associated with 5-year journal impact factor (?=0.42; p<0.001), journal subject area (?=0.39; p<0.001), number of years since publication (?=-0.29; p<0.001) and STARD (?=0.13; p<0.05). Independent determinants of 5-year journal impact factor were citation rates (?=0.45; p<0.001), statement on conflict of interest (?=0.22; p<0.01) and baseline sample size (?=0.15; p<0.05).ConclusionsCitation rates and 5-year journal impact factor appear to measure different dimensions of impact. Citation rates were weakly associated with completeness of reporting, while neither traditional metric was related to methodological rigour. Our results suggest that high publication usage and journal outlet is not a guarantee of quality and readers should critically appraise all papers regardless of presumed impact.

Project description:BackgroundShared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals.MethodsWe selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase "shared decision making" or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics.ResultsWe identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P?<?0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively).ConclusionThis review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the medical community.

Dataset Information

Methodological quality of preclinical stroke studies is not required for publication in high-impact journals.

Publications

Methodological quality of preclinical stroke studies is not required for publication in high-impact journals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets