Search

This review presents publication trends, characteristics, and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs (AHTDs). Between 1985 and 2017, 1,173 SRs were published, and in the last 20 years, 10, 35, and 116 were published in the year 1996, 2006, and 2016, respectively. Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers were the most common class of drugs studied. Fourteen percent of the SRs were prospectively registered/published protocol. Three‐fourth of the SRs did not report a full search strategy, and 45% did not report a PRISMA or similar diagram. Of the 34 SRs published in the five high impact factor journals in the last 10 years, 15%, 21%, and 65% have unclear, low, and high risk of bias, respectively. There has been a steady increase in the publication of SRs of RCTs of AHTDs. However, adherence to standard methods of conduct and reporting continues to be low., Between 1985 and 2017, 1,173 SRs of antihypertensive drugs (AHTDs) were published. Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers were the most common class of drugs studied. Fourteen percent of the SRs were prospectively registered/published protocol. Three‐fourth of the SRs did not report a full search strategy, and 45% did not report PRISMA diagram. Of the 34 SRs published in the five high impact factor journals in the last 10 years, 15%, 21%, and 65% have unclear, low, and high risk of bias, respectively. There has been a steady increase in the publication of SRs of RCTs of AHTDs. However, adherence to standard methods of conduct and reporting continues to be low.

BackgroundDespite progress that has been made in the treatment of many immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), there remains a need for improved treatments. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest form of evidence on the effectiveness of a potential new treatment regimen, but they are extremely expensive and time consuming to conduct. Consequently, much focus has been given in recent years to innovative design and analysis methods that could improve the efficiency of RCTs. In this article, we review the current use and future potential of these methods within the context of IMID trials.MethodsWe provide a review of several innovative methods that would provide utility in IMID research. These include novel study designs (adaptive trials, Sequential Multi-Assignment Randomised Trials, basket, and umbrella trials) and data analysis methodologies (augmented analyses of composite responder endpoints, using high-dimensional biomarker information to stratify patients, and emulation of RCTs from routinely collected data). IMID trials are now well-placed to embrace innovative methods. For example, well-developed statistical frameworks for adaptive trial design are ready for implementation, whilst the growing availability of historical datasets makes the use of Bayesian methods particularly applicable.To assess whether and how these innovative methods have been used in practice, we conducted a review via PubMed of clinical trials pertaining to any of 51 IMIDs that were published between 2018 and 20 in five high impact factor clinical journals.ResultsAmongst 97 articles included in the review, 19 (19.6%) used an innovative design method, but most of these were relatively straightforward examples of innovative approaches. Only two (2.1%) reported the use of evidence from routinely collected data, cohorts, or biobanks. Eight (9.2%) collected high-dimensional data.ConclusionsApplication of innovative statistical methodology to IMID trials has the potential to greatly improve efficiency, to generalise and extrapolate trial results, and to further personalise treatment strategies. Currently, such methods are infrequently utilised in practice. New research is required to ensure that IMID trials can benefit from the most suitable methods.

The aim of this article is to review and present the most important studies published in the field of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) during 2018. These studies were presented in a lecture given on this topic at the Endorama Meeting in Patras, Greece, in January 2019. In order to identify the most important and relevant articles, a search in the English language was conducted in PubMed for publications up to the end of December 2018, with special attention paid to publications in high impact factor journals. The highlights of the main Diabetes Meetings [ADA (American Diabetes Association) and EASD (European Association of Diabetes)], as well as Medscape, were also reviewed. Last but not least, press releases regarding advances in the diagnosis and treatment of T2DM were considered. We finally selected and discussed important studies concerning diagnosis, pathophysiology, and management of this very common clinical entity (19 studies). The majority of studies were clinical trials dealing with new therapeutic tools for treatment of the disease, with the greatest focus being on GLP-1RA. We also presented in brief the main points of new guidelines published for T2DM by various scientific societies (3 sets of guidelines). During 2018, not only leading diabetes associations published guidelines on the disease, but also societies belonging to other primary scientific fields. This is indicative of the awareness of physicians and scientists that T2DM constitutes today a major health problem and of the need for public health strategies for its treatment and prevention.

Purpose: To examine the absolute number and the proportions of articles published in general high-ranked ophthalmology journals for each ophthalmic subspecialty during the last decade, and to examine the publishing trends over the study period. Methods: All original articles published between January 2010 and December 2019 in the selected general clinical ophthalmic journals were included in the study. All abstracts of original articles were reviewed and deemed to be related to 1 of the 11 ophthalmic subspecialties. Results: Six journals and 10,232 abstracts were reviewed. Articles focused on medical retina were the most common in the last decade (35.22%) while articles focused on strabismus were the least common (2.11%). The total number of articles published per year decreased during the last decade ( p Conclusions: During the last decade, there have been differences in the proportion of publications of different ophthalmology subspecialties in high impact factor journals. This probably derives from demographic changes and advances in diagnosis and treatment. The proportion of articles focused on medical retina was the highest during all years while the proportion of articles focused on strabismus was consistently the lowest.

Objective To identify and describe the use of the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of evidence in nutrition systematic reviews (SRs). Study design and setting We systematically searched for SRs using GRADE that were published between 2015 and 2019 in the 10 “nutrition” journals with the highest impact factor according to the JCR 2018. Results Out of 800 SRs, 55 SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Forty-seven SRs (5.9%) rated the outcome specific certainty of evidence (n = 36 in 2018/2019). We identified a total of 465 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 335 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (28.8%) to low (41%), moderate (26.5%), and high (3.7%). Very-low and high certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 61.4% and 0.8% of ratings in SRs of NRSs, compared to 16.1% and 4.8% in SRs of RCTs. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mostly for risk of bias (37.8%) and imprecision (33%) in SRs of RCTs and for imprecision (32.7%), risk of bias (29.4%) and inconsistency (29%) in SRs of NRSs. Conclusion Our study suggests a need for directing more attention toward strengthening acceptance of GRADE as well as building knowledge of the GRADE methodology in nutrition evidence synthesis.

Aim To present a scientometric analysis of the entire body of scientific publications in the field of vital pulp therapy (VPT) and analyse the research trends and popular topics. Methodology A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Web of Science and Scopus databases on 21 August 2020 to identify all articles related to VPT. The publications were reviewed and basic research parameters were collected, including publication year, patterns of authorship, geographical distribution of scientific productions, journals, h-index, study design and keyword analysis. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar databases were used for the citation analysis of the ten top cited articles. The data were analysed using VOSviewer and visualized by tables and diagrams. Results In total, 1197 VPT-associated items were identified from 64 countries in 176 journals. The majority of papers were published in the Journal of Endodontics. The United States of America was the leading country for number of publications, citations, h-index and collaborations. The distribution of articles based on study design was as follows: basic science (35%), clinical (27%), observational studies (26%) and review publications (12%). The most frequently occurring keywords were pulpotomy, mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium hydroxide and direct pulp capping. Conclusions This scientometric analysis outlines the evolutionary trends and the productivity of researchers and countries in the field of vital pulp therapy. Research output is dominated by basic science articles involving innovative materials published in high impact factor dental journals.

Being the most proliferative journal of oncology a cancer research of the past decade, the Open Access journal Oncotarget had reached more than 20,000 publications and a relatively high impact factor score in the past years. In 2018, the journal citation report decided to withdraw the status of an impact factor journal. Since there was a large discussion in the scientific community and specific reasons for the withdrawal were not stated, this bibliometric analysis was performed to assess if Oncotarget exhibits any differences in its bibliometric structure compared to other journals. For this purpose, we used the “New Quality and Quantity Indices in Sciences” platform and analyzed 20,000 Oncotarget articles. Density equalizing mapping technique helps to construct maps of cancer research in Oncotarget and shows that it has led to a unique global landscape which is not asymmetrically dominated by the Western hemisphere but exhibits a publishing architecture with a pronounced emphasis on Chinese articles.

Background Informed consent confers upon participants the right to decline or accept participation in a study in equal measure. Consent declines can be used as a potential metric to assess the adequacy of the informed consent process. Limited literature is available on the reporting of consent declines in Clinical Research. We evaluated randomized controlled trials published in three high-impact factor journals for consent declines (four-year period) to assess the extent of exertion of autonomy by research participants. Methods CONSORT flow charts in RCTs published in New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) between 2012 and 2015 were evaluated. The total and per journal proportion of RCTs reporting consent declines was calculated. Percentage of consent declines was also compared based on number of centers (single centric vs. multicentric) and type of setting (developed vs. developing). Between-groups analysis was done using Chi Square, Chi Square for trend and a Crude odds ratio [95% C.I] (cOR) were calculated. Results Only 3.7% (1103/29,825) of the published articles were RCTs. Of the 1103 RCTs, only 532 (48.2%) reported consent declines. JAMA had the highest RCTs reporting consent declines (171/267.64%), the Lancet [129,150/781,924, 16.5%] had the most participants declining consent. Difference was significant using Chi square for linear trend [ p Conclusion Both authors and journal editors need to ensure better reporting of consent declines.

Career progression in academic medicine is partly influenced by publication productivity. There has been a significant increase in female authorship over a 35-year time period at both the first and senior authorship positions in 3 high impact factor neurology journals in the United States. While these trends are encouraging, a sex gap remains. Institutions/departments may wish to consider further strategies for trainees and faculty that can help to maintain momentum and narrow the gap further.

Background In this study, we aimed to evaluate the inclination of orthodontic research published in original articles in three of the most popular and recognized orthodontic journals with high impact factor; American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), the Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) published in a 5-year duration time frame (2010–2014). Materials and Methods Online search with supplementary hand searching was undertaken for original research articles in these three orthodontic journals from 2010 to 2014. Classification of data was completed autonomously by manual and direct appraisal of the manuscript of each journal. Results and Conclusion Three thousand one hundred and forty articles published in AJODO, AO, and EJO in the particular time period were selected, out of which 1783 original research study articles (56.78%) were appraised for classification in their various respective knowledge domains. AO (82.73%) and EJO (76.99%) were relatively more committed toward publication of research work in comparison to AJODO (34.55%). Research articles based on perception and questionnaires (12%), temporary anchorage devices (11%), cone-beam computed tomography (8%), invisible orthodontics (lingual orthodontics, clear aligners, esthetic brackets, and wires) (5%), and airway examination (5%) were the five most recurrently selected subjects of interest (41%) in these three journals during the observation period. The total number of research articles published in the three journals reduced statistically significantly in 2014 when compared to 2010.

Background To compare the frequency of “spin” in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact journals with the frequency a previously assessed series of reviews. Methods Medline was searched from January 2010 to January 2019. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies were included if they reported a meta-analysis and were published in a journal with an impact factor >5. Two investigators independently scored each included systematic review for positivity of conclusions and for actual and potential overinterpretation practices. Results Of 137 included systematic reviews, actual overinterpretation was present in ≥1 form in the abstract in 63 (46%) and in the full-text report in 52 (38%); 108 (79%) contained a form of potential overinterpretation. Compared with the previously assessed series (reviews published 2015–2016), reviews in this series were less likely to contain ≥1 form of actual overinterpretation in the abstract and full-text report or ≥1 form of potential overinterpretation (P Conclusions Reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact journals are less likely to contain overinterpretation or spin. This difference is largely due to the reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which contain spin less often than reviews published in other high-impact journals.

[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., FC-L and RT-S are supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III/CIBERSAM. BH is supported by a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. DM is supported by a University Research Chair, University of Ottawa.

Background Many studies examined gender inequalities in research, but only a few data are available for general biomedical journals. We assessed the prevalence of female first authorship in general biomedical journals and examined its variations across a number of author, article and journal characteristics. Methods This study was nested within a larger project designed to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles. We retrieved 767 randomly selected articles published in 2016 in high impact factor journals of primary healthcare (n = 9) and general internal medicine (n = 9). We extracted the following data: author (gender, number of publications and affiliation of the first author), paper (number of authors, number of participants and study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline and 2015 impact factor). We compared the proportion of articles authored by women and men using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for intra-cluster correlations. Results The female authorship proportion was 48% (63% for primary healthcare and 33% for general internal medicine, P-value < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, women published fewer articles (15 publications: OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1–2.4]), were more often affiliated with institutions in the Western world (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2–3.9]), were more likely to publish qualitative studies (versus systematic reviews or experiments: OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5–4.8]) and to publish in primary healthcare journals (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1–2.7]). Conclusions The underrepresentation of women in articles published by general internal medicine journals, in articles from the non-Western world and in systematic reviews and trials should be addressed.

Applying for a faculty position is a critical phase of many postdoctoral careers, but most postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields enter the academic job market with little knowledge of the process and expectations. A lack of data has made it difficult for applicants to assess their qualifications relative to the general applicant pool and for institutions to develop effective hiring policies. We analyzed responses to a survey of faculty job applicants between May 2018 and May 2019. We establish various background scholarly metrics for a typical faculty applicant and present an analysis of the interplay between those metrics and hiring outcomes. Traditional benchmarks of a positive research track record above a certain threshold of qualifications were unable to completely differentiate applicants with and without offers. Our findings suggest that there is no single clear path to a faculty job offer and that metrics such as career transition awards and publications in high impact factor journals were neither necessary nor sufficient for landing a faculty position. The applicants perceived the process as unnecessarily stressful, time-consuming, and largely lacking in feedback, irrespective of a successful outcome. Our findings emphasize the need to improve the transparency of the faculty job application process. In addition, we hope these and future data will help empower trainees to enter the academic job market with clearer expectations and improved confidence.

Importance Courtesy authorship is defined as including an individual who has not met authorship criteria as an author. Although most journals follow strict authorship criteria, the current incidence of courtesy authorship is unknown. Objective To assess the practices related to courtesy authorship in surgical journals and academia. Design, Setting, and Participants A survey was conducted from July 15 to October 27, 2017, of the first authors and senior authors of original articles, reviews, and clinical trials published between 2014 and 2015 in 8 surgical journals categorized as having a high or low impact factor. Main Outcomes and Measures The prevalence of courtesy authorship overall and among subgroups of authors in high impact factor journals and low impact factor journals and among first authors and senior authors, as well as author opinions regarding courtesy authorship. Results A total of 203 first authors and 254 senior authors responded (of 369 respondents who provided data on sex, 271 were men and 98 were women), with most being in academic programs (first authors, 116 of 168 [69.0%]; senior authors, 173 of 202 [85.6%]). A total of 17.2% of respondents (42 of 244) reported adding courtesy authors for the surveyed publications: 20.4% by first authors (32 of 157) and 11.5% by senior authors (10 of 87), but 53.7% (131 of 244) reported adding courtesy authorship on prior publications and 33.2% (81 of 244) had been added as a courtesy author in the past. Although 45 of 85 senior authors (52.9%) thought that courtesy authorship has decreased, 93 of 144 first authors (64.6%) thought that courtesy authorship has not changed or had increased (P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals. Both first authors (29 of 149 [19.5%]) and senior authors (19 of 85 [22.4%]) reported pressures to add courtesy authorship, but external pressure was greater for low impact factor journals than for high impact factor journals (77 of 166 [46.4%] vs 60 of 167 [35.9%];P = .04). More authors in low impact factor journals than in high impact factor journals thought that courtesy authorship was less harmful to academia (55 of 114 [48.2%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%]). Overall, senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesy authorship (eg, improved morale and avoided author conflicts) than did first authors. Conclusions and Relevance Courtesy authorship use is common by both first and senior authors in low impact factor journals and high impact factor journals. There are different perceptions, practices, and pressures to include courtesy authorship for first and senior authors. Understanding these issues will lead to better education to eliminate this practice.

Journals are routinely evaluated by journal impact factors. However, more controversially, these same impact factors are often used to evaluate authors and groups as well. A more meaningful approach will be to use actual citation rates. Since in each journal there is a very highly skewed distribution of articles according to citation rates, there is little correlation between journal impact factor and actual citation rate of articles from individual scientists or research groups. Simply stated, journal impact factor does not successfully predict high citations in future. In this paper, we propose the use of Peirce's measure of predictive success (Peirce in Science 4(93):453---454, 1884) to see if the use of journal impact factors to predict high citation rates is acceptable or not. It is seen that this measure is independent of Pearson's correlation (Seglen 1997) and gives a more quantitative refinement of the Type I and Type II classification of Smith (Financ Manag 133---149, 2004). The measures are used to examine the portfolios of some active scientists. It is clear that the journal impact factor is not effective in predicting future citations of successful authors.

Objectives To clarify the styles used in background sections of systematic reviews (SR) and to identify which styles if any were related to the publication in high-impact-factor (HIF) medical journals. Method This was a cross-sectional study for original SR articles published in top 50 journals in MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL category in Journal Citation Reports 2018. We randomly included 90 articles from top 10 HIF journals and 90 from others, respectively. We conducted a content analysis to classify the background styles. We assessed the factors associated with the publication in HIF journals. Results We found 6 categories. We defined 6 categories as follows: Update of prior SR, New in scope than prior SR, Higher quality than prior SR, Completely new SR, Limitations of primary studies only, and Not presenting unknown in prior SR or primary studies. All 6 categories were not related to the publication in HIF journals. Conclusions We found 6 categories of styles in background sections of SR, none of which however were related to publication in HIF journals. SR authors may wish to use any of these categories to communicate the importance of their research questions.

Objectives To determine the proportion and relative advancement of women in leadership positions at high-impact otolaryngology journals. Methods Nine clinical otolaryngology journals were selected based on high impact factor and subspecialty representation (journal impact factor, 2016: 1.16-2.95). The proportion of women editorial board members associate and/or section editors, and/or editor-in-chief was measured from 1997 to 2017. Comparisons were made to the proportion of women otolaryngology faculty at U.S. medical schools in 2017. Results From 1997 to 2017, female editorial board membership increased from 7.2% (range: 0.0%-12.8%) to 17.7% (range: 10.9%-38.9%) (P = 0.0001). In 2017, the proportion of female editorial board members was significantly less than the proportion of female academic otolaryngology faculty (17.7% vs. 27.7%, P = 0.0001), and there was threefold variation between journals. From 1997 to 2017, the proportion of female associate and/or section editors increased from 9.3% (range: 0.0-27.3) to 20.9% (range: 5.3% to 45.5%) (P = 0.09). In 2017, the proportion of female associate and/or section editors was not significantly different than the proportion of female associate or full professor academic otolaryngology faculty (20.9% vs. 19.5%, P = 0.73), but there was ninefold variation between journals. Conclusion Women were underrepresented on eight of nine otolaryngology editorial boards but appropriately represented at the associate and/or section editorship level. There was remarkable variation in representation at individual journals, which may provide future opportunities to examine best practices. Disparity exists in leadership at the most senior level of these high-profile otolaryngology journals: none had women editor-in-chiefs. Level of evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:2031-2035, 2019.

Summary Objective Perform a bibliometric analysis of the orthodontic literature on skeletal Class II malocclusions during the first decade of the 21st century. Materials and methods A retrospective, observational, and comprehensive study ranging from January the first 2001 to December 31 2010, based on the articles published in four high impact factor orthodontic journals: Angle Orthod, OCR, EJO, and AJODO (Quotation Report Newspaper of the Scientific Information Institute). Results In the 4565 reviewed articles, only 338 were published on Class II malocclusions. Brazil, the United States, Turkey, and Germany are the nationalities, which have published the most. The cross-sectional descriptive studies represent 33%, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) 10.5%, meta-analyses 0.3%. Discussion and conclusion Kanavakis et al. (2006) reported 72.34% of original articles, 2.83% of synthetic reviews, 8.89% of case reports, and 15.75% of unclassifiable articles. In conclusion, searchers in Orthodontics are invited to publish more clinical trials on skeletal Class II malocclusions.

American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) committees send monthly email blasts to members with links to peer-reviewed publications. This study assesses the utilization of this service.Email-opening and click-through rates were analyzed from 5/2012 to 4/2017 and compared to APSA and industry standards. Access was analyzed based on subject, disease type, journal, impact factor, and committee. CME questions were added in 10/2014 and emails consolidated in 1/2016. Effects of these changes were analyzed.Over 60 months, 281 articles were distributed from 58 journals. Access increased significantly with impact factor (P = 0.0039). Overall email opening rate (53% ± 3%) and click-through rate (37% ± 10%) were significantly higher than all APSA emails (43%,18%, P 0.0001) and 2017 industry standard (26%,12%,P 0.0001). Access rates differed significantly between the twenty-five topics covered (P 0.0001), with the highest access for appendicitis (240 ± 79, P 0.0001). Common condition articles (157 ± 93) were accessed more than rare (55 ± 60, P 0.0001). With email consolidation, opening rates increased (53 ± 3 to 55 ± 2, P = 0.003) and click-through rates decreased (40 ± 9 to 30 ± 8, P = 0.0002). By adding CME questions, opening rates increased nonsignificantly (52 ± 3 to 54 ± 2, P = 0.066) and click-through rate decreased significantly(41 ± 10 to 33 ± 9, P = 0.001).APSA email blasts are valued by members based on high access rates. Click-through rates have declined, potentially indicating user fatigue. APSA members prefer common conditions and high impact factor journals. These data will help refine this service.Level III.

Impact factor, which is a measure of the frequency of citation of articles published in a journal over a specified time, measures the rank or importance of a journal. There is a trend towards publication of high quality research in journals with high impact factor. This paper has outlined the importance, method of calculation, clinical implications, pitfalls and financial issues related to the impact factor of medical journals.

Background:High-quality trials have the potential to influence clinical practice.Methods:Ten otolaryngology journals with the highest 2011 impact factors were selected and publications from 2010 were extracted. From all medical journals, the 20 highest impact factor journals were selected, and publications related to otolaryngology for 2010 and 2011 were extracted. For all publications, the reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed.Results:The impact factor was 1.8–2.8 for otolaryngology journals and 6.0–101.8 for medical journals. Of 1500 otolaryngology journal articles, 262 were therapeutic studies; 94 had a high reporting quality and 5 a low risk of bias. Of 10 967 medical journal articles, 76 were therapeutic studies; 57 had a high reporting quality and 8 a low risk of bias.Conclusion:Reporting quality was high for 45 per cent of otolaryngology-related publications and 9 per cent met quality standards. General journals had higher impact factors than otolaryngology journals. Reporting quality was higher and risk of bias lower in general journals than in otolaryngology journals. Nevertheless, 76 per cent of articles in high impact factor journals carried a high risk of bias. Better reported and designed studies are the goal, with less risk of bias, especially in otolaryngology journals.

AIM To evaluate the full-text publication rates of scientific research abstracts presented at the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Congresses held between 1993 and 2013 (a total of 11 occasions) and to determine factors associated with the manuscripts. METHODOLOGY An electronic database search was conducted from January 2015 to December 2016 to identify full text English written publications of the research abstracts presented at the last 11 ESE Biennial Congresses from 1993 to 2013. For each occasion, research abstract information were retrieved from the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) through the official website of the ESE and the following parameters for each abstract presentation were recorded: Year of presentation, first author's affiliation, geographic origin, and type of study. Following full-text article identification, additional information was recorded such as: Year and journal of publication, elapsed time until full publication and number of authors per presentation and publication. RESULTS A total of 1165 research abstracts were presented, of which 401 (34.4%) were finally published as full-length articles. Overall 235 articles (58.6%) were published either in the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ, 35.7%) or Journal of Endodontics (JOE, 22.9%). The mean time between abstract presentation and full-text publication was 18.95 months. Munich (2001) had the highest publication rate (44%) whereas Lisbon (2013) had the highest number of published articles (77). Turkey was the country with the highest number of published abstracts (56). However, the Netherlands was the country with the highest number of publications related to the number of presentations (21/26) (80.7%). Differences in authorship between presentation and full publication were found in 179 (44.6%) articles. CONCLUSIONS A substantial number of research abstracts presented at ESE congresses were not published in peer reviewed journals. Authors prefer to publish their research papers in international journals with high impact factor. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

International audience; BACKGROUND: Physicians need clinical trials assessing benefits and harms of treatments to avoid under-treatment or over-treatment of elderly patients. The main objectives of this report were to examine how data regarding elderly oncology patients were presented in medical literature; and to assess the evolution of this presentation between two time periods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All phases I, II and III trials dedicated to the treatment of cancer among elderly patients published between 2001 and 2004 and between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed. All phase III clinical trials assessing cancer treatments among adults in the same periods were also reviewed to evaluate potential subgroup analyses in elderly patients in these studies. Key characteristics of interest were extracted by two investigators before descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 1084 trials were included: 366 and 718 from the first and second time period, respectively. Twenty-seven and 193 of these trials were phase I and II trials dedicated to elderly or frail patients, respectively. A large proportion of phase III trials published between 2011 and 2014 reported at least one analysis dedicated to elderly patients (46.7%) versus 19.3% during the first time period. The use of subgroup analyses of elderly patients in phase III trials was the most frequent source of information. Subgroup analyses were more frequent among trials with industrial funding, trials published in high impact factor journal, intercontinental trials and trials with large sample size. The age threshold defining the elderly subgroup increased over time. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients have become a topic of interest during the past decade. However, data available are mostly extracted from subgroup analyses, which can only be regarded as preliminary evidence.

Background The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement provides a minimum standard set of items to be reported in published clinical trials; it has received widespread recognition within the biomedical publishing community. This research aims to provide an update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact medical journals. Methods We performed a cross-sectional examination of the online “Instructions to Authors” of 168 high impact factor (2012) biomedical journals between July and December 2014. We assessed whether the text of the “Instructions to Authors” mentioned the CONSORT Statement and any CONSORT extensions, and we quantified the extent and nature of the journals’ endorsements of these. These data were described by frequencies. We also determined whether journals mentioned trial registration and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; other than in regards to trial registration) and whether either of these was associated with CONSORT endorsement (relative risk and 95 % confidence interval). We compared our findings to the two previous iterations of this survey (in 2003 and 2007). We also identified the publishers of the included journals. Results Sixty-three percent (106/168) of the included journals mentioned CONSORT in their “Instructions to Authors.” Forty-four endorsers (42 %) explicitly stated that authors “must” use CONSORT to prepare their trial manuscript, 38 % required an accompanying completed CONSORT checklist as a condition of submission, and 39 % explicitly requested the inclusion of a flow diagram with the submission. CONSORT extensions were endorsed by very few journals. One hundred and thirty journals (77 %) mentioned ICMJE, and 106 (63 %) mentioned trial registration. Conclusions The endorsement of CONSORT by high impact journals has increased over time; however, specific instructions on how CONSORT should be used by authors are inconsistent across journals and publishers. Publishers and journals should encourage authors to use CONSORT and set clear expectations for authors about compliance with CONSORT.

Background: The ability to comprehend a text depends primarily on the knowledge about its words. This study investigated the most frequent words in high impact factor (IF) English nursing journals. Materials and Methods: This corpus-based study was conducted on the articles of 13 English nursing journals with an IF of over 0.7 from November 2014 to September 2016. After the typographical errors were corrected and the tokens (running words) in each journal were equalized, the tokens were analyzed using the Range software. Finally, a word list was extracted from the final 2851 articles and 8196,953 tokens to reach the optimal 98% vocabulary coverage. Results: A word list consisting of 1081 word families and 3175 word types with 5.24% coverage was extracted, which fulfilled the 98% vocabulary coverage. In other words, the coverage of the 1081 word-family list (5.24%), the coverage of the 1st 3000 English word families (87.55%), proper names, marginal words, compound words, and abbreviations related to the software (3.29%), and the coverage of the new proper names (1.13%), new compounds (0.02%), new abbreviations (0.72%), and letter–number combinations (0.05%) totaled 98%. Conclusions: By learning the 1st 3000 English word families and the 1081 word families introduced in this study, a nursing student can comprehend the texts of articles in high IF nursing journals without any considerable help from other resources.

Background: We hypothesize that being an editorial board member (EBM) in a high impact factor specialty medical journal increases the chances of publishing in the same journal. Materials and Methods: The publication trends of the first five EBMs in the five highest impact factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology journals were analyzed. Preceding 5 years' publications appearing on PubMed were grouped into as follows: number of publications in the journal in which the EBM serves (N1), number of publications by the same author in the other four highest impact factor (IF) journals (N2) and number of publications in all the other journals (N3). We evaluated the probability of the observed distribution of publications in the five highest IF journals happening by chance alone, assuming that all the EBMs had the same opportunity of publishing in any of these journals. The probability of publishing in their own journal was assumed to be one fifth. Results: The EBMs published their manuscripts in their own journal at a very high frequency. Encompassing all ten journals, the calculated P value for such a distribution was

We show that when ecologists act as reviewers their reported rejection rates recommended for manuscripts increases with their publication frequency in high impact factor journals. Rejection rate however does not relate to reviewer age. These results indicate that the likelihood of getting a paper accepted for publication may depend upon factors in addition to scientific merit. Multiple reviewer selection for a given manuscript therefore should consider not only appropriate expertise, but also reviewers that have variable publication experience with a range of different journals to ensure balanced treatment. Interestingly since age did not relate to rejection rates, more senior scientists are not necessarily more jaded in reviewing practices.

Aim: The present study was conducted with an aim to determine the number and trends of published articles in the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) and Journal of Endodontics (JOE) from 2009 to 2014. Settings and Designs: A retrospective observational study was conducted for IEJ and JOE. Subjects and Methods: All issues of IEJ and JOE were electronically and hand searched for the following parameters: Amount of papers, publication year, affiliated organizations, and countries. Statistical Analysis Used: The data were organized and analyzed using software SPSS version 21.0; descriptive statistics was used. Results: A total of 872 articles were analyzed in the IEJ and JOE with 1606 papers. Brazil had the largest number of articles (170) mainly in IEJ, and the USA (350) in JOE. Indians published more of their research in JOE than IEJ. Conclusions: Original articles in endodontic publication from different universities in India have considerably increased, showing that research is becoming more important.

CytoJournal organized its first Peer-Reviewer's Retreat of 2006 during the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology Annual Meeting at Atlanta on Feb 12, 2006. The major topics discussed were open access, peer review, and impact factors. Representative participants volunteered to join the task force to prepare an instructional guide for peer-reviewing cytopathology manuscripts. Concern about the impact factor for CytoJournal was discussed. A feedback to its readers and authors was recommended. Impact factor calculation needs at least three years of journal statistics. It is only possible after two years from the time a journal is first accepted by Thomson-ISI for citation tracking. CytoJournal is still too new for an impact factor to be calculated. However, general progress of CytoJournal suggests an encouraging pattern for high impact factor.