Search

Background Traditional measures of evaluating scholarly output do not capture the impact social media can provide in disseminating and promoting research. We sought to better understand the level of online attention that high-quality hand research received. Methods Scientific manuscripts published from 2017 in Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) ( JHS-A), Journal of Hand Surgery ( European Volume) ( JHS-E), and HAND were recorded. Manuscript characteristics were determined, including the number of citations. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a measure of a manuscript’s online attention and impact, was determined, as well as Twitter mentions, Facebook mentions, and news outlet mentions. Spearman rho (ρ) correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between the number of citations and AAS. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine which manuscript factors were associated with AAS. Results A total of 323 manuscripts were identified. There was a weak positive correlation between the number of citations and AAS; however, this relationship did not exist for each individual journal. Publication in HAND and JHS-E were associated with lower average manuscript AAS when using JHS-A as the reference group. Two additional factors were also associated with increased manuscript AAS: (1) being a clinical study focused on a specific upper extremity anatomical location; and (2) increasing number of institutions on a study. Conclusions Publication in HAND and JHS-E were associated with lower manuscript AAS when using JHS-A as the reference group, suggesting that HAND and JHS-E have room for improvement in using social media to share their high-quality hand surgery scientific articles.

To compare the quantity and quality of publications during the residency training period in Cardiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology in Spain.A retrospective cohort study of residents from 4 specialties lasting 5 years (2014-2019). The number and type of publications indexed in PubMed®, the names of the journals and their bibliometric indexes (impact factor and quartiles), and author's positions were evaluated.The 649 residents included in the study generated 801 publications (publication/resident ratio 1.23). Cardiology residents published significantly more (ratio 2.57) and Intensive Care Medicine residents less (ratio 0.42) than the remaining specialties (Internal Medicine, ratio 1.06; Medical Oncology, ratio 0.76; p .001). Overall, only 44.5% of residents participated in a publication, with 27.6% participating in an original article; this latter percentage increased significantly among cardiologists (47.7%; p .001). The predominant types of publications were original articles (47.9%) and clinical reports (36.8%). The proportion of publications in first quartile journals was higher for Cardiology residents (44.6% of total). The resident was the first or last author in only one-third of the publications. Scientific productivity was related to specialty, but not to gender or the size of the hospital in which the residency training occurred.Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology residents publish insufficiently, while the scientific production from Cardiology residents could be considered acceptable.

Breast reconstruction is an important component of comprehensive breast cancer care. Although reconstructive plans require multidisciplinary clinical-decision making, research in cross-discipline collaborations is often limited. This study aims to evaluate multidisciplinary involvement in breast reconstruction outcomes research.A systematic review of breast reconstruction literature published from 2000 to 2019 using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and PubMed databases was conducted. English language articles published in North America or Europe with n ≥ 12 nonpediatric patients were included. Articles concerning procedures not performed in the context of breast cancer care or articles that did not evaluate at least one outcome, diagnostic test, or risk factor were excluded. Authors' affiliations were used to define multidisciplinary involvement. Quality of research was evaluated using the level of evidence, journal impact factor (IF), and altmetrics.Of the 1679 articles screened, 784 met the stated eligibility criteria. Only half (50.6%) of these articles involved an author outside the discipline of plastic surgery. Compared to nonmultidisciplinary studies, multidisciplinary studies were more likely to be designated with a higher level of evidence (I or II) (p0.001), published in journals with higher IF (p0.05), have higher usage (p = 0.03), and mentions (p = 0.02). There was no difference in citations, captures, and social media posts (p0.05).Breast reconstruction outcomes research often fails to offer author collaborations from nonplastic surgery disciplines. Multidisciplinary involvement in breast cancer care research is strongly recommended to improve the quality and impact of clinical studies in breast reconstruction.

The bibliometric analysis was conducted to evaluate the publication characteristics of Journal of Dental Sciences (JDS) from ScienceDirect Online between 2009 and 2020. The most common published article type in JDS was original articles. The top four highest number of published articles were related to oral and maxillofacial surgery, periodontology, endodontology, and oral pathology. The most productive geographic region for articles was Asia. Taiwan ranked in the highest country in terms of successful publication in JDS. The impact factor of JDS ranged from 0.107 in 2009 to 2.080 in 2020. As compared with years between 2009 and 2014, there was a significant increase in impact factor during 2015–2020 (P = 0.026). By this bibliometric analysis, JDS needs to attract more audience outside the Asia to gain the higher international influence.

Background/aim Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research held its inaugural international editorial board virtual meeting on September 16, 2021, to brainstorm ideas for sustainable growth. This special article summarizes the key concepts obtained from the webinar proceedings, with further development of ideas from ensuing discussions occurring after the meeting. Methods From the initial discussion points provided by eight editorial board members, including six presenters, email discussions further enriched these ideas to construct the current special article. The key points discussed were: 1) impactful research and impact factors, 2) international and Asian perspectives, and 3) challenges to sustainable growth. Results The editors noted the existing gap between the impact factor and research impact as a challenge for the growth paths of regional journals. However, they agreed that persevering with impactful research would ultimately translate into parallel and gradual gains in impact, which is, therefore, consistent with the organic growth of the journal. Acknowledging challenges in navigating between unique Asian perspectives and international outlooks, the editors encouraged academic journals to serve as bridges linking international evidence with the richness of local perspectives. For sustainable growth, the editors suggested that journals may be forged into the academic ecosystems of the region, diversify value streams, and establish themselves as reputable brands in disciplines. Conclusion By combining these discussions, we proposed the 'IMPACT' strategy for journals on the growth path in the region, which stands for 1) IMmersive user experience encompassing authors, reviewers, and readers; 2) Pasteur's quadrant use-inspired research; 3) Asia-Pacific context; 4) Collaborative; and 5) Translation to practice and policy.

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Zu den Leistungskriterien einer Universitätsklinik gehören ihre Publikationsaktivitäten. Ziel der vorliegenden bibliometrischen Untersuchung war es, die Publikationsaktivitäten deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken in einem Benchmarking vergleichend darzustellen. Material und Methodik Die Publikationsleistung der Führungsmannschaften, bestehend aus Chef- und Oberärzten, Sektions- und Bereichsleitern von 39 deutschen unfallchirurgischen Universitätskliniken wurde über 10 Jahre (01.01.2010 bis 31.12.2019) erfasst. Berücksichtigt wurden alle Publikationen, die in PubMed gelistet waren und bei denen die entsprechenden Personen Erst- oder Letztautor waren. Zusätzlich wurde der Impact-Faktor (IF) bestimmt. Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 4438 Veröffentlichungen erfasst, publiziert von 381 Chirurgen. Der Anteil der publizierenden Mitarbeiter betrug 72,8 %. Publiziert wurde in 545 Journalen. Der durchschnittliche IF aller Publikationen war 1,81. Die Publikationsaktivitäten der Kliniken zeigten eine hohe Streubreite, dies galt sowohl für die Publikationsanzahl als auch für die generierten IF des einzelnen Mitarbeiters. Die Publikationsaktivität reichte von durchschnittlich 16,4 Publikationen pro Mitarbeiter in der bestplatzierten Klinik bis 1,5 Publikationen bei der letztplatzierten. Gleiches ergab die Summe der IF. In der nach diesem Maßstab bestplatzierten Klinik erzielte der einzelne Mitarbeiter durchschnittlich kumuliert 42,1 IF verglichen mit 1,7 IF bei der letztplatzierten. Schlussfolgerung Die Publikationsleistung deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken zeigt eine hohe Varianz, wie dies auch bei anderen Disziplinen gefunden wurde. Die Ursachen müssen offen bleiben, eine unterschiedliche Forschungsmotivation ist aber nicht auszuschließen.

BACKGROUND Academic conferences such as the annual Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) meeting provide opportunities to present up-to-date scientific work that can influence clinical decision making. This study reviewed 4 years of abstracts presented at POSNA to assess trends in poster and podium presentation publication rates and associated metrics and the impact of academic presentations on the pediatric orthopaedic literature. METHODS All abstracts presented at POSNA annual meetings from 2013 to 2016 were analyzed for presentation type, subspeciality, level of evidence, study design, peer-reviewed publication within 4 years of presentation, 1-year publication rates, journal impact factors, number of authors, and citations of the final publication. χ2, analysis of variance, and t tests were conducted to measure independence of variables. Statistical significance was indicated at P

The article provides an overview of the most significant publications on the topic of male infertility. The main selection criteria were considered the practical significance of the article, as well as the impact factor of the journal in which it was published, according to the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). As a result, a list of 10 works published in the II quarter (April – June) of 2021 was formed. The review includes articles on the following issues: the effectiveness of repeated micro-TESE in non-obstructive azoospermia, the role of COVID-19 in male fertility, the effect of testosterone therapy on spermatogenesis, testicular microlithiasis, electroejaculation as a method of obtaining spermatozoa, harm from carrying cell phones near the genitals, prediction of the effectiveness of intrauterine insemination, the effect of advanced paternal age on sperm aneuploidy, and the importance of the microbiome for male fertility.

Background As reported by the World Health Organization, adolescent pregnancy is a major public health concern given its impact on the life of mothers and their family members. In this study we investigated possible cause-effect relations between teenage pregnancy and school dropout, and other attributes that gravitate around them, using the Bayesian network approach. Methods We used a database prepared by the Adolescent House Project and invited experts in the areas of Health, Education and Social Assistance to answer a survey containing questions aimed at detecting possible causal relationships. To perform the statistical analysis and the numerical simulations we employed the language and formalism of Bayesian networks. Results The analysis indicated a strong cause-effect relation between teenage pregnancy and school dropout, bolstered by economic vulnerability. We were able to identify the profile of the female teenager who drops out from school: white girls older than 15 years who got pregnant at least once, are not working to generate an income, and who belong to the group where the family income is less than or equal to US$780 per month. Also we detected the “maternal impact factor", i.e., the effect caused by whether or not the mothers of the teenagers have experienced teenage pregnancy. Conclusion There are many factors that lead teenagers to drop out of school; we confirmed not only the commonsense notion that pregnancy of the teenager is a major factor but found that a history of teenage pregnancy on the part of the mother is a major factor. Moreover, Bayesian networks emerged as an interesting mathematical framework to perform the statistical analysis.

PURPOSE: The citation count of a scientific article is considered as the recognition it received from this field. The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to identify the top 100 most-cited scientific articles in penile surgical reconstruction. METHODS: The Web of Science database was used to extract the top 100 most-cited articles. Individual articles were reviewed to identify the authorship, published journal, journal impact factor (IF), primary disease, article type, institution and country of origin, and year of publication. RESULTS: The top 100 most-cited articles were published between 1947 and 2013. The number of citations ranged from 23 to 233. Journal of Urology contributed the most articles (n = 36). Articles with a high level of evidence like prospective analysis (n = 5), systematic review and meta-analysis (n = 2), and guideline (n = 1) were all published after 2000. The average citation per year of articles published in high-IF journals was significantly higher than that of other articles (p = 0.0129). There was a positive linear correlation between citation count per year and publication year (r2 = 0.26, p < 0.001). Among the top 100 articles, 74 articles were interlinked via citation of each other. The major topic of co-citation network was the application of flaps in penile reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of top 100 most-cited articles facilitates the comprehensive recognition of current focus in the field of penile surgical reconstruction, which is the exploration of flaps and development of new techniques in penile reconstruction. In the future, more attention should be paid to evidence-based medicine to provide high-level evidence for research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

PRECIS Characteristics of the most mentioned glaucoma articles on the internet were analyzed, allowing a better understanding of the dissemination of glaucoma research to the general public. PURPOSE To determine the 100 most mentioned articles on the internet in the field of glaucoma and analyze their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified the top 100 glaucoma articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), an automatically calculated metric for monitoring social media. Each article was evaluated for several characteristics including year of publication, title, journal name, journal impact factor (IF), article topic, article type, affiliation, and online mentions (news, blog, policy, Twitter, Facebook, etc). Correlation analysis was conducted for AAS with these characteristics. RESULTS The selected 100 articles came from 44 journals with more than half (56%) published in ophthalmology-specific journals. There was no significant correlation between IF and number of articles in a specific journal or AAS (P>0.1), but the number of articles in the top 100 was higher for ophthalmology journals with a higher IF (P

BACKGROUND Effective leadership is an integral component for optimal academic performance of surgical units. As one of the leading plastic surgery academic medical centers in China, the authors would like to share their experiences of using the combined parental and shared leadership approach in managing their surgical staff within the department. It has taken into account the essence of Eastern moral philosophies and Western leadership theories. METHODS The authors performed a review of the academic development of their staff and changes in the academic productivity of the department between 1999 and 2018. The difference between the first 10 years (1999 to 2008) and second 10 years (2009 to 2018) was analyzed to assess the effectiveness of the authors' leadership approach. RESULTS There is an increase in the number of Science Citation Index articles published in the past decade with a higher impact factor and more articles published in international journals. The timing to promotion was on average 8.4 years. The average age of promotion to consultants has increased, likely because of a later start in the training. With similar average age, prior education, and gender ratio of surgeons in the unit, the department also received 14 times more in research funding and four times more in national key topic research topic. CONCLUSIONS The effective application of this combined leadership approach has significantly improved the academic productivity and quality of the authors' residents and surgeons and the academic advancement of the unit.

Publications are an important component of academic careers. We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere. This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals’ Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times. We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p = 0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p

Induction of labour has become more common over the last decade, together with an increase in the number of systematic reviews of the subject. However, with multiple systematic reviews it is necessary to evaluate the methodological rigor to ensure the reliability of conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to appraise the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of labour induction methods. An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) by two independent reviewers, in duplicate. The search identified 387 publications, of which 48 studies (13%) met the a priori inclusion criteria. No significant relationships were found between study quality and number of citations, journal impact factor, or publication year. Methodological quality for systematic reviews on the induction of labour were ranked as moderate with no significant changes in quality over the past 2 decades. Publication characteristics are not significantly associated with methodological quality, indicating that healthcare professionals should critically appraise studies before applying them to practice.

Background Social media has an increasing role within professional surgical practice, including the publishing and engagement of academic literature. This study aims to analyze the relationship between social media use and traditional and alternative metrics among academic surgical journals. Method Journals were identified through the InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019, and their impact factor, h-index, and CiteScore were noted. Social media platforms were examined, and Twitter activity interrogated between 1 January to 31 December 2019. Healthcare Social Graph score and an aggregated Altmetric Attention Score were also calculated for each journal. Statistical analysis was carried out to look at the correlation between traditional metrics, Twitter activity, and altmetrics. Results Journals with a higher impact factor were more likely to use a greater number of social media platforms (R2 = 0.648; P Conclusion Higher impact factor is associated with social media presence and activity, particularly on Twitter, with long-term activity being of particular importance. Modern alternative metrics correlate with impact factor. This relationship is complex, and future studies should look to understand this further.

Background The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement. Methods We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015. Results In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8–32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6–16%. Conclusions NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.

BACKGROUND The Pediatric Trauma Society (PTS) is a multidisciplinary organization, with scientific presentations at its annual meeting addressing trauma care from prehospital through rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the scholarly areas of focus of presentations at the annual meeting over the society's first 5 years and evaluate research dissemination. METHODS Data were collected on abstracts presented between 2014 and 2018, including titles, authors, and abstract classification. PubMed and Google Scholar searches identified abstracts that resulted in publications. Journal impact factors were identified. RESULTS Over 5 years, 491 of 635 (77.3%) abstracts were accepted. The number of submitted and accepted abstracts increased, but the acceptance rate was stable (range = 72.1%-81.2%, p = NS [nonsignificant]). The most frequently accepted categories included "Epidemiology," "Abdominal or Thoracic Trauma," and "Neurosurgery or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)," whereas "Trauma Nursing" and "Quality Improvement" were less common. Among the 2014-2016 abstracts, 55.4% of podium and 24.3% of poster presentations were published. Abstracts categorized as "Epidemiology," "Education & Injury Prevention," and "Neurosurgery or TBI" were commonly presented but uncommonly published. The median journal impact factor of publications was 2.1 and 2.0 for podium and poster presentations, respectively (ranging from 0.11 to 10.25). CONCLUSION Most of the scholarly effort presented at the PTS remains unpublished. Published work is mainly in low-impact factor journals. Mentorship in the publication process and encouragement of multidisciplinary collaboration within the society are needed to address limitations in the number and potential impact of the scientific content of the annual meeting. This type of analysis is relevant not only to the PTS but also to any professional society seeking to improve its impact.

Purpose: Journal impact factor (IF) is often used to measure research quality and importance. We assessed trial factors associated with the publication of cancer trials in journals with higher IF and publications receiving higher citations. Materials and Methods: Cancer-specific phase III RCTs were screened through https://clinicaltrials.gov. We identified trials with published primary endpoints, along with their corresponding journal IF and relative citation ratio (RCR). Results: Seven-hundred ninety manuscripts were included in our study. Trials that met their primary endpoint were more commonly published in journals with higher IF (Median IF: positive trials 35.4 vs. negative trials 26.3, P < 0.001). Furthermore, trials that led to subsequent FDA drug approvals were also published in journals with higher IF (Median IF: 59.1 vs. 26.3 in trials not leading to FDA approvals, P < 0.001). When analyzing RCR, trial positivity (meeting primary endpoint) was not associated with increased citations on multivariable analysis (P = 0.56). Lastly, publications of trials leading to FDA approvals (P < 0.001), and publications of trials in journals with higher IF (P < 0.001) were associated with increased RCR. Conclusions: Positive trials are commonly published in journals with high IF, but do not necessarily lead to increased citations. Moreover, trials published in journals with higher IF are more likely to receive increased citations.

Publication of research in anaesthesia is increasingly competitive. Understanding what topics of research are more likely to be published and where, is clearly valuable for authors seeking to optimise reach and impact of their work. This study aimed to identify the relative proportion of anaesthesia articles by topic for five anaesthesia journals over a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, including any differences between journals and regions. We chose five anaesthesia journals based on current impact factor. All journal issues published between 2010–2019 were checked for total number of articles with only original research articles being further categorised by topic, country of research, funding status and citation count. Of 5782 original research articles analysed, the most frequent article topics published were translational studies (16%) and clinical practice (16%). Obstetric anaesthesia was the least frequent published (4%). Translational studies were the most frequently funded (84%) while articles on paediatric anaesthesia were least frequently funded (29%). The average number of citations per funded article was 37 versus 28 for non-funded articles. Translational studies were the most frequently published topic of research conducted in North America (25%) and Asia (25%), but of only average frequency in Europe (9%). Studies in obstetric and paediatric anaesthesia are less well-represented in anaesthesia literature and researchers may experience greater difficulty publishing these topics and obtaining funding accordingly. Authors should be aware of the diverse publishing tendencies of the different journals in anaesthesia in order to save time and effort when submitting research for publication.

Background Presentation at academic conferences is an important marker of research productivity. However, not all accepted abstracts progress to full publication, and there is anecdotal evidence suggesting an imbalance in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters. There is a lack of data evaluating the outcome of prize presentation sessions at academic surgical conferences in the UK. This study aimed to analyse the outcomes and demographics from presentations at prize sessions at two prestigious UK surgical conferences. Methods This retrospective observational study compared data on all Moynihan (Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland) and Patey (Surgical Research Society) prize presentations from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was rate of publication. Secondary outcomes included demographic differences in sex and ethnicity, publication according to prize outcome, academic affiliation, time to publication, and journal impact factor. Results Some 442 accepted abstracts were identified over the 21-year period, with 71.0% from the Moynihan sessions and 79.3% from the Patey sessions leading to full publications, with a median time to publication of 448 days (IQR 179–859) in journals with relatively high impact factors (median 5.00; IQR 3.15–6.36). Of the 442 prize presenters, 85 (19.2%) were female. The majority of the presenters were White males (211, 47.7%), followed by Asian males (112, 25.3%). However, there was a continuously increasing overall trend of female presenters from 2000 to 2020 (P = 0.019). Conclusion Publication rates from the two prize sessions were high, with presenters publishing in journals with high impact factors. There, however, was a disparity in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters.

Several different reporting biases cited in scientific literature have raised concerns about the overestimation of effects and the subsequent potential impact on the practice of evidence-based medicine and human health. Up to 7-8% of the population experiences neuropathic pain, and established treatment guidelines are based predominately on published, clinical trial results. Therefore, we examined published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line drugs for neuropathic pain and assessed the relative proportions with statistically significant (i.e., positive) and non-significant (i.e., negative) results and their rates of citation. We determined the relationships between reported study outcome and the frequency of their citations with journal impact factor, sample size, time to publication after study completion, and study quality metrics. We also examined the association of study outcome with maximum study drug dosage and conflict of interest. We found that of 107 published RCTs, 68.2% reported a statistically significant outcome regarding drug efficacy for chronic peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Positive studies were cited nearly twice as often as negative studies in the literature (P=0.01), despite similar study sample size, quality metrics, and publication in journals with similar impact factors. The time to publication, journal impact factor, and conflict of interest did not differ statistically between positive and negative studies. Our observations that negative and positive RCTs were published in journals with similar impact at comparable time-lags after study completion are encouraging. However, the citation bias for positive studies could affect the validity and generalization of conclusions in literature and potentially influence clinical practice.