Validity of the Impact Factor of Journals as a Measure of Randomized Controlled Trial Quality

Corrado Barbui · Andrea Cipriani · Lara Malvini · Michele Tansella

35 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the impact factor, a measure of the frequency with which journal articles are cited in the scientific literature, is a proxy measure of the quality of articles reporting the results of randomized controlled trials. METHOD: The quality of trials included in an ongoing Cochrane review concerned with the antidepressant fluoxetine was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety, and Neurosis quality assessment instrument, the Jadad scale, and the quality criterion of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Journal impact factors were extracted from the Journal Citation Report. RESULTS: A total of 131 articles reported results from 132 clinical trials comparing fluoxetine with other antidepressants. The relationship between trial quality and the impact factor of journals where these studies were published, stratified by period of publication, revealed that journals with impact factors above 4 points published only trials with above-average overall quality ratings, while journals with impact factors below 4 points published both high- and low-quality trials. The Jadad scale revealed similar quality in trials published in journals with high, medium, and low impact factors (Pearson chi(2) = 0.298, p = .861), and the quality criterion of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook showed unclear randomization in the majority of trials and in all 15 trials published in high-impact factor journals (Pearson chi(2) = 4.678, p = .096). CONCLUSION: The impact factor of journals is not a valid measure of randomized controlled trial quality.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

2011Quality of randomised controlled trials in dentistry 2017Randomized clinical trials of dental bleaching – Compliance with the CONSORT Statement: a systematic review 2018The quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in the dermatology literature in an era where the CONSORT statement is a standard 2008The Publication Rate and Impact of Abstracts Presented at the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (1999–2005)2022Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials 2013Assessments of the quality of randomized controlled trials published in I nternational J ournal of U rology from 1994 to 2011 2013Methodological quality in clinical trials and bibliometric indicators: no evidence of correlations 2024Quantity and quality are increasing but there's room for improvement: A scoping review of physical activity intervention trials

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.