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

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferrán Catalá-López ◽  
Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent ◽  
Lisa Caulley ◽  
Brian Hutton ◽  
Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
England Journal ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
New England ◽  
High Impact ◽  
High Impact Factor ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Prolific Authors ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map the global clinical research publication activity through RCTs related articles in high-impact factor medical journals over the past five decades. Methods 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 RCTs 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 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 were presented. Results We included 39305 articles (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. 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n=18393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n=8028 articles), Canada (n=4548 articles) and Germany (n=4415 articles). Seventeen authors who 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). 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 9 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. “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, 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 research leadership of Western countries, but with very limited representation from low and middle-income countries.

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

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferrán Catalá-López ◽  
Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent ◽  
Lisa Caulley ◽  
Brian Hutton ◽  
Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
England Journal ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
New England ◽  
High Impact ◽  
High Impact Factor ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Prolific Authors ◽  
Sectional Analysis

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.

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

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferrán Catalá-López ◽  
Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent ◽  
Lisa Caulley ◽  
Brian Hutton ◽  
Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
England Journal ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
New England ◽  
High Impact ◽  
High Impact Factor ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Prolific Authors ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map the global clinical research publication activity through RCTs related articles in high-impact factor medical journals over the past five decades. Methods 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 RCTs 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 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 were presented. Results We included 39305 articles (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. 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n=18393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n=8028 articles), Canada (n=4548 articles) and Germany (n=4415 articles). Seventeen authors who 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). 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 9 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. “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, 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 research leadership of Western countries, but with very limited representation from low and middle-income countries.

scholarly journals Year in Review: Synopsis of Selected Articles in Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care from 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 06 (01) ◽  
pp. 018-023
Author(s):  
Kyle J. Rogan ◽  
Tumul Chowdhury ◽  
Lakshmikumar Venkatraghavan
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
England Journal ◽  
American Medical Association ◽  
Medical Association ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
New England ◽  
American Medical ◽  
Neurocritical Care ◽  
High Impact ◽  
High Impact Factor

AbstractThis review is a synopsis of selected articles from neuroscience, neuroanesthesia, and neurocritical care from the year 2018 (January–October 2018). The journals reviewed included anesthesia journals, critical care medicine journals, neurosurgical journals as well as high-impact factor medical journals such as Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and Stroke. This summary of important articles will serve to update the knowledge of anesthesiologists and other perioperative physicians who provide care to neurosurgical and neurocritical patients.

scholarly journals Scientific output of Brazilian dermatologists during the last 25 years in the five highest impact factor journals in dermatology

2012 ◽  
Vol 87 (5) ◽  
pp. 714-716
Author(s):  
Mariane Da Cas de Aquim Martins ◽  
Marília Gabriela Linné Netto Carneiro ◽  
Joyce Benck Utzig ◽  
Eleolina Lara Kaled Neta ◽  
Majenna Andrade Pachnicki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Pemphigus Foliaceus ◽  
High Impact Factor ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Number Of Publications

BACKGROUND: The qualitative and quantitative scientific output of Brazilian dermatologists in journals of high impact factor is little known. OBJECTIVE: To describe the scientific output of dermatologists from Brazilian institutions in journals of high impact factor. METHODS: The five journals with the highest impact factor in dermatology were analyzed. All articles produced from Brazilian institutions between 1986 and 2010 were compiled and the following aspects were analyzed: position of Brazilian researchers in the list of authors, selected theme, experimental design, studied disease, area of interest and year of publication. RESULTS: Seventy-four articles written with the participation of Brazilian dermatologists have been identified. Upon grouping the articles in five-year periods, an important increase was observed in the Brazilian production from the year 2006 onwards. The dermatologists were placed as second authors in the majority of cases (53.66%). According to the selected theme to be studied, the majority of the articles had a laboratory focus (45.95%). The majority of the articles reported cross-sectional studies or non-controlled clinical trials (both at 17.57%), and pemphigus foliaceus was the most studied disease (29.73%). CONCLUSION: The increase in the number of publications by Brazilian dermatologists over the last years is encouraging, but it is still small in comparison to the total number of articles published in these five periodicals.

scholarly journals Year in Review: Synopsis of Selected Articles in Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care from 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (01) ◽  
pp. 03-10
Author(s):  
KokWeng Leong ◽  
Tara Dalby ◽  
Lashmi Venkatraghavan
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
England Journal ◽  
American Medical Association ◽  
Medical Association ◽  
New England ◽  
American Medical ◽  
Neurocritical Care ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Critical Care Medicine ◽  
Medical Journals

AbstractThis review is a synopsis of selected articles from neuroscience, neuroanesthesia, and neurocritical care from 2019 (January–November 2019). The journals reviewed included anesthesia journals, critical care medicine journals, neurosurgical journals, as well as high-impact medical journals such as the Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine, and Stroke. This summary of important articles will serve to update the knowledge of anesthesiologists and other perioperative physicians who provide care to neurosurgical and neurocritical cases.

scholarly journals Year in Review: Synopsis of Selected Articles in Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care from 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 08 (01) ◽  
pp. 012-019
Author(s):  
Tariq Esmail ◽  
Sudhakar Subramaniam ◽  
Lashmi Venkatraghavan
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
England Journal ◽  
American Medical Association ◽  
Medical Association ◽  
New England ◽  
American Medical ◽  
Neurocritical Care ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Critical Care Medicine ◽  
Medical Journals

AbstractThis review is a synopsis of selected articles from neuroscience, neuroanesthesia, and neurocritical care from the year 2020 (January–December 2020). The journals reviewed include anesthesia journals, critical care medicine journals, neurology and neurosurgical journals, as well as high-impact medical journals such as the Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine, and Stroke. This summary of important articles will serve to update the knowledge of anesthesiologists and other perioperative physicians who provide care to neurosurgical and neurocritical care patients. In addition, some of the important narrative reviews that are of interest to neuroanesthesiologists are also listed.

scholarly journals The Difficult Way to Publish a Research Paper

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (A) ◽  
pp. 483-487
Author(s):  
Kuat Oshakbayev ◽  
Gulnara Bedelbayeva ◽  
Khalit Mustafin ◽  
Attila Tordai
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
High Impact Factor ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Publishing Services

BACKGROUND: The authors aim to publish the results of their studies in peer-reviewed targeted international journals with a high impact-factor as possible, but they are also exposing to “predatory” publishers. AIM: The aim of the study was to offer some advices for authors to help to identify relevant medical journals, avoid “predatory” journals and publishers, use intermediary services, know a journal policy, and expectations of good journal editor(s). RECOMMENDATIONS: During the publication process authors should find suitable journals, assume a risk to encounter “predatory” or “hijacked” journals, know the advantages and disadvantages of using intermediary publishing services, understand expectations of editor(s), and make payment for article processing. CONCLUSIONS: The advices can help many researchers to publish their papers in relevant journals with cited indexes, and avoid many problems within the publication process.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures of Physician-Authors Publishing in High-Impact U.S. Medical Journals: A Comparison of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H Baraldi ◽  
Steven Picozzo ◽  
Jacob Arnold ◽  
Kathryn Volarich ◽  
Michael Gionfriddo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
England Journal ◽  
American Medical Association ◽  
Medical Association ◽  
New England ◽  
American Medical ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Clinical Trial Research ◽  
Open Payments

Objective: To assess the accuracy of self-reported financial conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) within the requisite disclosure period prior to article submission. Design: Cross-sectional investigation. Data Sources: Original clinical-trial research articles published in NEJM (n = 206) or JAMA (n = 188) from January 1 to December 31, 2017; self-reported COI disclosure forms submitted to NEJM or JAMA with the authors published articles; Open Payments website (from database inception; latest search: August 2019). Main outcome measures: Financial data reported to Open Payments from 2014 to 2016 (time period that included all subjects requisite disclosure windows) were compared to self-reported disclosure forms submitted to the journals. Payments were defined as those not associated with a research study or formal research funding. Payment types were categorized as disclosed, undisclosed, indeterminate, or unrelated. Results: Thirty-one articles from NEJM and 31 articles from JAMA met inclusion criteria. The physician-authors (n = 118) received a combined total of $7.48 million. Of the 106 authors (89.8%) who received payments, 86 (81.1%) received undisclosed payments. The top 23 most highly compensated received $6.32 million, of which $3.00 million (47.6%) was undisclosed. Disclosure rates were the equivalent between the top 23 and the entire sample. Conclusions: High payment amounts, as well as high proportions of undisclosed financial compensation, regardless of amount received, comprised potential COIs for two influential US medical journals. Further research is needed to explain why such high proportions of general payments were undisclosed and whether journals that rely on self-reported COI disclosure need to reconsider their policies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document