Dataset Information

Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Over 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.

Objective

We 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 selection

Original 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 extraction

Studies 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.

Results

1,671 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).

Conclusion

Improved 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.

SUBMITTER: Ivanov A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5249065 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals.

Ivanov Alexander A Kaczkowska Beata A BA Khan Saadat A SA Ho Jean J Tavakol Morteza M Prasad Ashok A Bhumireddy Geetha G Beall Allan F AF Klem Igor I Mehta Parag P Briggs William M WM Sacchi Terrence J TJ Heitner John F JF

PloS one 20170120 1

<h4>Context</h4>Over 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.<h4>Objective</h4>We 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.<h4>Data sources a ...[more]

PMID: 28107475

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:PurposeTo determine how well the orthopaedic sports medicine literature reported sex-specific analysis (SSA) in 2011 and 2016.MethodsThe 3 highest-impact orthopaedic sports medicine subspecialty journals (American Journal of Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy; and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy) were selected for review. Two independent investigators reviewed all journal issues published during 2 different calendar years (2011 and 2016). All randomized controlled, prospective and retrospective group, and case-control studies were included. Studies were stratified into those that involved SSA, where sex was a variable in a multifactorial statistical model, and those that only reported sex as a demographic characteristic or used sex-matched groups without further analysis.ResultsA total of 960 studies evaluating 3,400,569 patients met criteria and were included in this review. Although 44.4% of the overall study population was female, only 293 (30.5%) studies included patient sex as variable in a multifactorial statistical model. The proportion of studies that performed SSA did not differ between 2011 (29.6%) and 2016 (31.1%; P = .607), although publications from American Journal of Sports Medicine were likely to report SSA (P < .05). Of the 293 studies that reported SSA, 91 (31%) demonstrated a significant difference in outcomes. The most commonly reported differences were in outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament, medial patellofemoral ligament, and posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; autograft preparation; postoperative use of opiates following arthroscopy; and recovery after sports-related concussions.ConclusionsAlthough most sports medicine studies include approximately 50% female and 50% male patients, statistical analysis differentiating the 2 subsets is not routinely performed. Only 30.5% of all studies performed SSA, 31% of which reported a statistically significant difference in the data when comparing outcomes between male and female patients with the same treatment modalities.Clinical relevanceThe current study demonstrates that the orthopaedic sports medicine subspecialty literature is lacking in reporting SSA, and that there has been minimal improvement over a 5-year time period. In addition, this study highlights the high percentage of significant findings within the studies that performed SSA and underscores the differences in sex-specific injury patterns and treatment outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceIndividuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.ObjectiveTo determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresProportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists.ResultsOf 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.

Project description:PurposeTo examine the trends between various categories of institutions with their respective published orthopaedic sports medicine content and to determine the publication output and citation rate from the 25 highest-ranked medical schools compared with lower-ranked institutions.MethodsPublications between 2015 and 2019 from the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and Arthroscopy were categorized into university/university affiliated hospitals, non-university affiliated teaching hospitals, public/semi-government research institutes, nonprofit research institutes, private sector institutions, government institutions, and other institutions. Citation rates were collected from PubMed for the first and corresponding author. Similarly, corresponding authors were stratified by U.S. News and World Report 2021 medical school research rankings.ResultsOf the 12,152 publications identified, 5,044 publications met the inclusion criteria. Nonprofit research institutions garnered the greatest number of citations on average (6.44 based on first author, SD 8.83, n = 214; 6.62 based on corresponding author, SD 9.65, n = 208; P < .001), while university/university-affiliated hospitals produced the majority of published articles (77.0% based on first author, 76.8% based on corresponding author), but had lower average citation rates (4.48 based on first author, SD 6.67, n = 3,886; 4.44 based on corresponding author, SD 6.55, n = 3,873; P < .001). Furthermore, of 1953 medical school publications, the top 25 accounted for 53.1% of publications; however, there was no statistical difference between their citation rates and those of lower rankings (P = 0.47).ConclusionsPublications are cited at different rates, depending on their institution of origin. In addition, high-ranking medical schools produce a disproportionately greater output of publications than lower-ranking schools, but there is no statistically significant difference in citation rates on an individual publication basis.Clinical relevanceKnowing how an institution's ranking influences publication and citation rates can help us understand bias in the scientific literature.

Dataset Information

Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals.

Context

Objective

Data sources and study selection

Data extraction

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets