Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 67, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 754-759

  Fleming, Padhraig S ^a   Koletsi, Despina ^b   Seehra, Jadbinder ^c   Pandis, Nikolaos ^d  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

^c KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

AMSTAR; Impact factor; Meta analysis; Methodological quality; Review; Systematic

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA EXTRACTION; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

AMSTAR; IMPACT FACTOR; META-ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC;

JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84902536354     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. I. Chalmers, and D. Altman Systematic reviews 1995 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd London, UK
2. C. Mulrow, D. Cook, and F. Davidoff Systematic reviews: critical links in the great chain of evidence C. Mulrow, D. Cook, Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions 1998 American College of Physicians Philadelphia, PA 1 4
3. A.D. Oxman Checklist for review articles BMJ 309 1994 648 651
4. H. Sacks, J. Berrier, D. Reitman, V.A. Ancona-Berk, and T.C. Chalmers Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials N Engl J Med 316 1987 450 455
5. B.J. Shea, J.M. Grimshaw, G.A. Wells, M. Boers, N. Andersson, and C. Hamel et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 15 2007 7 10
6. G. Martel, S. Duhaime, J.S. Barkun, R.P. Boushey, C.R. Ramsay, and D.A. Fergusson The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer Syst Rev 1 2012 14
7. J.P. Brito, A. Tsapas, M.L. Griebeler, Z. Wang, G.J. Prutsky, and J.P. Domecq et al. Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias J Clin Epidemiol 66 2013 633 638
8. L. Monasta, G.D. Batty, A. Cattaneo, V. Lutje, L. Ronfani, and F.J. Van Lenthe et al. Early-life determinants of overweight and obesity: a review of systematic reviews Obes Rev 11 2010 695 708
9. P.S. Fleming, J. Seehra, A. Polychronopoulou, Z. Fedorowicz, and N. Pandis Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm? Eur J Orthod 35 2013 244 248
10. P. Dreyfuss, and R. Baker In response to treatment of neck pain Eur Spine J 17 2008 1270 1272
11. A.V. Kulkarni, J.W. Busse, and I. Shams Characteristics associated with citation rates of the medical literature PLoS One 2 2007 e403
12. A.V. Kulkarni, B. Aziz, I. Shams, and J.W. Busse Author self-citation in the clinical general medicine literature PLoS One 6 2011 e20885
13. M.M. Bala, E.A. Akl, X. Sun, D. Bassler, D. Mertz, and F. Mejza et al. Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis J Clin Epidemiol 66 2013 286 295
14. P.O. Seglen Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research BMJ 314 1997 498 502
15. A.R. Weale, M. Bailey, and P.A. Lear The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor BMC Med Res Methodol 4 2004 14
16. S.A. Marashi On the identity of "citers": are papers promptly recognized by other investigators? Med Hypotheses 65 2005 822
17. J. Rizkallah, and D.D. Sin Integrative approach to quality assessment of medical journals using impact factor, eigenfactor, and article influence scores PLoS One 5 2010 e10204
18. D. Hind, and A. Booth Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance? An empirical study BMC Med Res Methodol 7 2007 49
19. M.W. Langendam, E.A. Akl, P. Dahm, P. Glasziou, G. Guyatt, and H.J. Schünemann Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews Syst Rev 2 2013 81