Dataset Information

Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:As systematic reviews' limited coverage of the medical literature necessitates decision-making based on unsystematic review, we investigated a possible advantage of systematic review (aside from dataset size and systematic analysis): does systematic review avoid potential bias in sampling primary studies from high impact factor journals? If randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in higher-impact journals present different treatment benefits than RCTs reported in lower-impact journals, readers who focus on higher-impact journals for their rapid literature reviews may introduce bias which could be mitigated by complete, systematic sampling. METHODS:We randomly sampled Cochrane Library (20 July 2005) treatment reviews that measured mortality as a binary outcome, published in English or French, with at least five RCTs with one or more deaths. Our domain-based assessment of risk of bias included funding source, randomness of allocation sequence, blinding, and allocation concealment. The primary analysis employed logistic regression by a generalized linear model with a generalized estimating equation to estimate the association between various factors and publication in a journal with a high journal impact factor (JIF). RESULTS:From the 29 included systematic reviews, 189 RCTs contributed data. However, in the primary analyses comparing RCT results within meta-analyses, there was no statistically significant association: unadjusted odds of greater than 50% mortality protection in high-JIF (>?5) journals were 1.4 (95% CI 0.42, 4.4) and adjusted, 2.5 (95% CI 0.6, 10). Elements of study quality were weakly, inconsistently, and not statistically significantly correlated with journal impact factor. CONCLUSIONS:Journal impact factor may have little to no association with study results, or methodological quality, but the evidence is very uncertain.

SUBMITTER: Saginur M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7069162 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Saginur Michael M Fergusson Dean D Zhang Tinghua T Yeates Karen K Ramsay Tim T Wells George G Moher David D

Systematic reviews 20200309 1

<h4>Background</h4>As systematic reviews' limited coverage of the medical literature necessitates decision-making based on unsystematic review, we investigated a possible advantage of systematic review (aside from dataset size and systematic analysis): does systematic review avoid potential bias in sampling primary studies from high impact factor journals? If randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in higher-impact journals present different treatment benefits than RCTs reported in lower-im ...[more]

PMID: 32164791

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:There is an increasing prevalence of hypothyroidism and there is a growing body of meta-analyses (MAs) on the association between hypothyroidism and other diseases. However, the methodological quality of the MAs significantly varies. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate and summarise data on the methodological quality of MAs on the associations between hypothyroidism and other diseases using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale, providing suggestions for clinical decision-making processes. DESIGN:To assess the methodological quality of MAs using the AMSTAR scale. DATA SOURCES:A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, web of science and Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:We included MAs that had assessed the association between hypothyroidism and other diseases in humans and that had full texts regardless of the publication status. No restriction applied on language or date. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of all searched literature to acquire potentially eligible publications. The full texts of possible eligible publications were downloaded and assessed. Inconsistent comments were resolved through discussions with a third reviewer. RESULTS:52 studies were included. The average AMSTAR score of the included articles was 8.6 (range: 5-10), and those of English and Chinese MAs were 8.8 and 7.0, respectively. A total of 52 MAs were evaluated, and 19 (36.5%) and 33 (63.5%) of these MAs were of moderate and high quality, respectively. None of the MAs were of low quality. Only two MAs had an a priori design. Items 3, 5 and 9 had the highest compliance (50/52, 96.2%), and aside from item 1, items 7 and 8 had the lowest compliance (33/52,63.5%). According to the results of these MAs, hypothyroidism was significantly associated with cardiovascular diseases, metabolic diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, breast cancer and pregnancy outcome. CONCLUSIONS:The methodological quality of the included MAs on the association between hypothyroidism and other diseases was moderate to high. MAs with high qualities confirmed that hypothyroidism was significantly associated with cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, preterm birth and neonatal outcomes. Consideration of scientific quality when formulating conclusions should be made explicit and more attention should be paid to improving the methodological quality of MAs, and increasing their applicability for clinical decision-making.

Dataset Information

Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets