scholarly journals Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: An evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990–2012) and of latest practices (2017–2018) in high-impact journals

NeuroImage ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 221 ◽  
pp. 117164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denes Szucs ◽  
John PA. Ioannidis
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Size Evolution ◽  
Highly Cited

scholarly journals Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: an evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990-2012) and of latest practices (2017-2018) in high-impact journals

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denes Szucs ◽  
John PA Ioannidis
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Structural Mri ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Targeted Interventions ◽  
Rate Of Increase ◽  
Size Evolution ◽  
Clinical Fmri ◽  
Study Power ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Brain Imaging ◽  
Highly Cited

AbstractWe evaluated 1038 of the most cited structural and functional (fMRI) magnetic resonance brain imaging papers (1161 studies) published during 1990-2012 and 273 papers (302 studies) published in top neuroimaging journals in 2017 and 2018. 96% of highly cited experimental fMRI studies had a single group of participants and these studies had median sample size of 12, highly cited clinical fMRI studies (with patient participants) had median sample size of 14.5, and clinical structural MRI studies had median sample size of 50. The sample size of highly cited experimental fMRI studies increased at a rate of 0.74 participant/year and this rate of increase was commensurate with the median sample sizes of neuroimaging studies published in top neuroimaging journals in 2017 (23 participants) and 2018 (24 participants). Only 4 of 131 papers in 2017 and 5 of 142 papers in 2018 had pre-study power calculations, most for single t-tests and correlations. Only 14% of highly cited papers reported the number of excluded participants whereas about 45% of papers in 2017 and 2018 reported excluded participants. Targeted interventions from publishers and funders could facilitate increase in sample sizes and adherence to better standards.

A Need to Archive Correct Biomedical Scientific Data and to Prevent Continued Citation of Retracted Scientific Publications

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (supplement) ◽  
pp. 29-37
Author(s):  
Ruy Tchao
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Life Science ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Recent Analysis ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Biomedical Field ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Highly Cited

The number of retracted peer reviewed scientific publications in the biomedical field has exponentially increased 15 times since early 2000 while the total number of publications only increased 1.44 times over the same period. Although retractions are rare (only 1 in 5,000 of all publications), the data and the science propounded by the retracted papers have significant impact because many retracted papers are published in high impact journals and are highly cited by other scientists. The scientific data contained in a retracted paper should be erased from the data bank. Even after retraction, many of these papers continue to be cited or can re-appear in future literature citation after a number of years. Recent analysis shows that in the fields of life science and medicine, 67.4% of the retracted papers are due to misconduct, of which 43.4% are due to fraud or suspected fraud. These flawed papers have high impact on public health and patient care as illustrated here by the cases of Wakefield and Potti. It is suggested here that a more stringent process of publication is necessary, including the review process and author certification of responsible citations of the literature that does not contain retractions.

scholarly journals Scientometric correlates of high-quality reference lists in ecological papers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Mammola ◽  
Diego Fontaneto ◽  
Alejandro Martínez ◽  
Filipe Chichorro
Keyword(s):  
Reference Lists ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Journal Publications ◽  
Classic Papers ◽  
Highly Cited

AbstractIt is said that the quality of a scientific publication is as good as the science it cites, but the properties of high-quality reference lists have never been numerically quantified. We examined seven numerical characteristics of reference lists of 50,878 primary research articles published in 17 ecological journals between 1997 and 2017. Over this 20-years period, there have been significant changes in reference lists’ properties. On average, more recent ecological papers have longer reference lists, cite more high Impact Factor papers, and fewer non-journal publications. Furthermore, we show that highly cited papers across the ecology literature have longer reference lists, cite more recent and impactful papers, and account for more self-citations. Conversely, the proportion of ‘classic’ papers and non-journal publications cited, as well as the temporal range of the reference list, have no significant influence on articles’ citations. From this analysis, we distill a recipe for crafting impactful reference lists.

scholarly journals Replication and contradiction of highly cited research papers in psychiatry: 10-year follow-up

2015 ◽  
Vol 207 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aran Tajika ◽  
Yusuke Ogawa ◽  
Nozomi Takeshima ◽  
Yu Hayasaka ◽  
Toshi A. Furukawa
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Larger Sample ◽  
Highly Cited

BackgroundContradictions and initial overestimates are not unusual among highly cited studies. However, this issue has not been researched in psychiatry.AimsTo assess how highly cited studies in psychiatry are replicated by subsequent studies.MethodWe selected highly cited studies claiming effective psychiatric treatments in the years 2000 through 2002. For each of these studies we searched for subsequent studies with a better-controlled design, or with a similar design but a larger sample.ResultsAmong 83 articles recommending effective interventions, 40 had not been subject to any attempt at replication, 16 were contradicted, 11 were found to have substantially smaller effects and only 16 were replicated. The standardised mean differences of the initial studies were overestimated by 132%. Studies with a total sample size of 100 or more tended to produce replicable results.ConclusionsCaution is needed when a study with a small sample size reports a large effect.

The Longitudinal Study of Highly-Impact-Technology Enterprises in the ICT Industry

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 54-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsi-Yin Yeh ◽  
Mu-Hsuan Huang ◽  
Dar-Zen Chen
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Technology Innovation ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
Patent Citation ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Prior Art ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Ict Industry ◽  
Highly Cited

Patent citation can be viewed as an indicator for technical impact and technical invention. Highly cited patents represent the “prior art” of many issued patents and are likely to contain significant technological advances. Enterprises that produced these highly cited patents may influence industrial technological development. Because the technologically intensive industries require technology innovation to constantly adapt to the changing environment, any enterprises can disrupt the market and produce high impact technologies. This study aims to explore highly cited technologies in the ICT industry and uses social network analysis and knowledge-based characteristics to investigate the transitions of highly-impact-technology enterprises. The longitudinal analysis of technological leaders examines competitive tendency in specific fields to anchor the positions of the enterprises. This study proposes a different viewpoint to analyze highly-impact-technology enterprises based on social network perspective and knowledge-based characteristics.

scholarly journals Recognizing high impact in acarological research

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1494
Author(s):  
Zhi-Qiang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Highly Cited Papers ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Highly Cited ◽  
Journal Citation

The impact factor for Systematic and Applied Acarology (SAA) in 2017 was announced in the latest release (June 2018) of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from Clarivate Analytics. I take this opportunity to comment on the growth of SAA’s impact factor and recognize the top 10 most highly cited papers that contributed greatly it. I also introduce the James Allen McMurtry Award, recently instituted by the Systematic and Applied Acarology Society to recognize acarologists who have made outstanding contributions to systematic and/or applied acarology.

Abstract 041: Trends in Publication and Methodological Quality of Major Non-inferiority Cardiovascular Trials From 1990-2016: a Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
John W Welsh ◽  
Behnood Bikdeli ◽  
Yasir Akram ◽  
Ike Lee ◽  
Nihar R Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Cardiovascular Medicine ◽  
Loss To Follow Up ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Relative Risks ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Lost To Follow Up

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of an intervention compared with control have become increasingly common in cardiovascular medicine. Such RCTs may be biased toward null findings through low enrollment, post-randomization exclusions, loss to follow-up, or wide inferiority margins. We characterized the features of non-inferiority cardiovascular RCTs published in high-impact journals that could lead to bias. Methods: We searched PubMed for non-inferiority cardiovascular RCTs published between January 1, 1990 and August 11, 2016 in The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet , and JAMA . We reviewed methodological characteristics, including sample size, power estimates, selected non-inferiority margin, and success of studies in achieving non-inferiority. Results: Of 3,689 screened studies, we identified 104 non-inferiority RCTs. Publication increased over time (P<0.001), as more than 50% (n=53) were published since 2010. Of 101 trials with eligible data, 80 (77%) trials claimed non-inferiority (19 of which also demonstrated superiority), whereas 21 (20%) did not (including 7 which showed worse outcomes with the tested intervention, and 14 that had inconclusive results, Figure). Only 1 study had >10% of participants lost to follow-up. Of 75 studies with available data, 14 reported >10% post-randomization exclusions. Of 89 studies with available information, 10 analyzed a cohort >20% smaller than their calculated sample size. Only 55 studies (53%) reported all the randomized patients in the primary endpoint analyses. Only 52 trials (50%) reported analyses from both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts, of which 2 found a discrepancy in analyses. Treatment adherence was reported in 18 trials (34%). Pre-specified non-inferiority margins ranged widely, with absolute differences between 0.4-14%, hazard ratios between 1.05-2.85, odds ratios between 1.1-2.0, and relative risks between 1.1-2.0. Only 9 studies (8.7%) used a placebo or no-intervention arm. Conclusion: Non-inferiority designed RCTs in cardiovascular medicine are increasingly published in high-impact journals, commonly conclude non-inferiority of the new intervention, and frequently have design features that might bias the studies toward non-inferiority.

scholarly journals Qualitative Medical Sociology: What are its Crowning Achievements?

1997 ◽  
Vol 90 (11) ◽  
pp. 604-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Chard ◽  
R J Lilford ◽  
B V Court
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Theoretical Analysis ◽  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Medical Sociology ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Highly Cited

Doctors and epidemiologists seldom read or cite qualitative medical sociology; it is little published in medical journals. A large number of articles bewail this lack and provide arguments explaining and justifying the subject. Any examples used in such articles are selected ad hoc. We made a systematic search for the literature and used citation analysis to select the world's top 100 articles. We analysed this trawl and provide resumes of a selection from the ‘classics’. Mental health and the organization of medicine are the themes within medical sociology with highest impact. Much highly cited work consists of historical and theoretical analysis done ‘at the desk’ rather than observation or interview ‘in the field’. Citation rates, even for the most famous works in medical sociology, are a small fraction of those for high impact biomedical research.

scholarly journals A review of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Farrow ◽  
William T. Gardner ◽  
Andrew D. Ablett ◽  
Vladislav Kutuzov ◽  
Alan Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
General Medical Journals

Abstract Introduction The recent past has seen a significant increase in the number of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in “the big five” general medical journals. The quality of this research has, however, not yet been established. Methods We therefore set out to critically appraise the quality of available literature over a 10-year period (April 2010–April 2020) through a systematic search of these 5 high-impact general medical journals (JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, Lancet and Annals). A standardised data extraction proforma was utilised to gather information regarding: trial design, sample size calculation, results, study quality and pragmatism. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the modified Delphi list. Study pragmatism was assessed using the PRECIS-2 tool. Results A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. Over half of the included trials did not meet their sample size calculation for the primary outcome, with a similar proportion of these studies at risk of type II error for their non-significant results. There was a high degree of pragmatism according to PRECIS-2. Non-significant studies had greater pragmatism that those with statistically significant results (p < 0.001). Only 56% studies provided adequate justification for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the population assessed. Overall, very few studies were deemed high quality/low risk of bias. Conclusions These findings highlight that there are some important methodological concerns present within the current evidence base of RCTs published in high-impact medical journals. Potential strategies that may improve future trial design are highlighted. Level of evidence Level 1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document