Methodology and analytic techniques used in clinical research: associations with journal impact factor.
Methodology and analytic techniques used in clinical research: associations with journal impact factor.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/aog.0b013e3181b5c9e8
复制
发表时间：
2009-10
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Peipert JF
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kuroki LM;Allsworth JE;Peipert JF
描述研究方法和统计报告发表的文章在高影响因子，一般医学期刊相比，中等影响因子妇产科期刊。对2006年1 - 6月发表在6种期刊（高影响因子组--Journal of the American Medical Association、Lancet、the新英格兰Journal of Medicine;中等影响因子组--American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology、British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology和Obstetrics & Gynecology）的371篇文章进行横断面分析。文章按证据等级分类。从每篇文章中提取的数据包括：作者人数、明确陈述的假设、样本量/把握度计算、统计测量和回归分析的使用。进行单变量分析，以评估高和中等影响因素组之间的差异。大多数已发表的报告是观察性研究（50%），其次是随机对照试验（[RCT] 24%）、病例报告（14%）、系统综述（6%）、病例系列（1%）和其他研究类型（4%）。在高因素影响组中，35%为RCT，而中度影响组为12%（RR 2.9，95% CI 1.9-4.4）。推荐的统计报告（例如精确度测量的点估计）在高影响组中更常见（P<0.005）。高影响因子组发表的RCT比例是中等影响因子组的3倍。努力提供最高水平的证据和统计报告有可能提高可用于临床决策的医学文献中报告的质量。
To describe research methodology and statistical reporting of published articles in high impact factor, general medical journals compared to moderate impact factor obstetric and gynecology journals. A cross-sectional analysis was performed on 371 articles published from January to June 2006, in 6 journals (high impact factor group—Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine; moderate impact factor group—American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Obstetrics & Gynecology). Articles were classified by level of evidence. Data abstracted from each article included: number of authors, clearly stated hypothesis, sample size/power calculations, statistical measures, and use of regression analysis. Univariable analyses were performed to evaluate differences between the high and moderate impact factor groups. The majority of published reports were observational studies (50%), followed by randomized controlled trials ([RCTs] 24%), case reports (14%), systematic reviews (6%), case series (1%), and other study types (4%). Within the high factor impact group, 35% were RCTs compared to 12% in the moderate impact group (RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.9-4.4). Recommended statistical reporting (eg point estimates with measures of precision) was more common in the high impact group (P<0.005). The proportion of RCTs published among the high impact factor group was 3 times that of the moderate group. Efforts to provide the highest level of evidence and statistical reporting have potential to improve the quality of reports in the medical literature available for clinical decision making.