scholarly journals Publication Trends of Pediatric and Adult Randomized Controlled Trials in General Medical Journals, 2005–2018: A Citation Analysis

Children ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 293
Author(s):  
Michael L. Groff ◽  
Martin Offringa ◽  
Abby Emdin ◽  
Quenby Mahood ◽  
Patricia C. Parkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Publication Trends ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
General Medical Journals

Policy has been developed to promote the conduct of high-quality pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Whether these strategies have influenced publication trends in high-impact journals is unknown. We aim to evaluate characteristics, citation patterns, and publication trends of pediatric RCTs published in general medical journals (GMJs) compared with adult RCTs over a 13-year period. Studies were identified using Medline, and impact metrics were collected from Web of Science and Scopus. All RCTs published from 2005–2018 in 7 GMJs with the highest impact factors were identified for analysis. A random sample of matched pediatric and adult RCTs were assessed for publication characteristics, academic and non-academic citation. Citations were counted from publication until June 2019. Among 4146 RCTs, 2794 (67.3%) enrolled adults, 591 (14.2%) enrolled children, and 761 RCTs (18.3%) enrolled adult and pediatric patients. Adult RCTs published in GMJs grew by 5.1 publications per year (95% CI: 3.3–6.9), while the number of pediatric RCTs did not show significant change (−0.4 RCTs/year, 95% CI: −1.4–0.6). Adult RCTs were cited more than pediatric RCTs (median(IQR): 29.9 (68.5–462.8) citations/year vs. 13.2 (6.8–24.9) citations/year; p < 0.001); however, social media attention was similar (median(IQR) Altmetric Attention Score: 37 (13.75–133.8) vs. 26 (6.2–107.5); p = 0.25). Despite policies which may facilitate conduct of pediatric RCTs, the publishing gap in high-impact GMJs is widening.

Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals

JAMA ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 297 (11) ◽  
pp. 1233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harriette G. C. Van Spall ◽  
Andrew Toren ◽  
Alex Kiss ◽  
Robert A. Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
General Medical Journals

Trends in High-Impact Neurosurgical Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 129 ◽  
pp. e158-e170
Author(s):  
Aditya V. Karhade ◽  
Joeky T. Senders ◽  
Enrico Martin ◽  
Ivo S. Muskens ◽  
Hasan A. Zaidi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
General Medical Journals

scholarly journals Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 107327481878130
Author(s):  
Huiyun Zhu ◽  
Si Chen ◽  
Pei Xie ◽  
Geliang Yang ◽  
Zhenqiang Zhong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Solid Tumor ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Outcome Feedback ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Registration Rate ◽  
General Medical Journals

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important for evidence-based medicine; however, their quality of reporting remains to be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the report concerning solid tumor medication. Articles were searched in PubMed to identify all oncology phase III RCTs published from 2011 to 2015, and the results were classified manually through Endnote X7.0 software. Registration rate, primary end point (PEP) consistency, positive result rate, enrollment time point, outcome feedback in the registry, and publish time zone were extracted and assessed. The overall registration rate was higher than years before; nevertheless, a portion of trials showed PEP discrepancies and enrolled patients before registration in either journal formats. Trials published in top 5 general medical journals paid more attention to results feedback on registration websites and were more prompt with publication after study accomplishment. Our data suggested general medical journals may be more rigorous compared to oncology journals but identified a preference for positive results. On the whole, RCTs published between 2011 and 2015 seemed fairly standardized. Surveillance in registry and outcome feedback still needs to be strengthened for the stringency and reliability of clinical trials in solid tumor medication territory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document