Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials
Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00513-3
复制
发表时间：
2002-04-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Gluud, C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kjaergard, LL;Gluud, C
本研究的目的是评估是否有阳性试验（即，统计学显著）结果比阴性试验更常被引用。我们回顾了1985-1996年MEDLINE索引的I I英语期刊上发表的530项关于肝胆疾病的随机临床试验。从每项试验中，我们提取了主要研究结果（阳性或阴性）、疾病区域和方法学质量（随机化和双盲）的统计学显著性。发表后两个日历年内的引文数量来自科学引文索引。统计学显著性研究结果与引用频率之间存在显著正相关（β，0.55，95%置信区间，0.39-0.72）。疾病区域和分配序列的足够世代也是引文频率的显著预测因子。我们得出的结论是，积极的试验被引用的次数明显多于消极的试验。这种关联不能用疾病领域或方法学质量来解释。(C)2002年爱思唯尔科学公司All rights reserved.
The objective of this study was to assess whether trials with a positive (i.e., statistically significant) outcome are cited more often than negative trials. We reviewed 530 randomized clinical trials on hepato-biliary diseases published in I I English-language journals indexed in MEDLINE from 1985-1996. From each trial, we extracted the statistical significance of the primary study outcome (positive or negative), the disease area, and methodological quality (randomization and double blinding). The number of citations during two calendar years after publication was obtained from Science Citation Index. There was a significant positive association between a statistically significant study outcome and the citation frequency (beta, 0.55, 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.72). The disease area and adequate generation of the allocation sequence were also significant predictors of the citation frequency. We concluded that positive trials are cited significantly more often than negative trials. The association was not explained by disease area or methodological quality. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.