Article2005

Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences

497 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

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

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

Abstract

CONTEXT: The relative merits of various study designs and their placement in hierarchies of evidence are often discussed. However, there is limited knowledge about the relative citation impact of articles using various study designs. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the type of study design affects the rate of citation in subsequent articles. DESIGN AND SETTING: We measured the citation impact of articles using various study designs--including meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, case reports, nonsystematic reviews, and decision analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis--published in 1991 and in 2001 for a sample of 2646 articles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The citation count through the end of the second year after the year of publication and the total received citations. RESULTS: Meta-analyses received more citations than any other study design both in 1991 (P<.05 for all comparisons) and in 2001 (P<.001 for all comparisons) and both in the first 2 years and in the longer term. More than 10 citations in the first 2 years were received by 32.4% of meta-analyses published in 1991 and 43.6% of meta-analyses published in 2001. Randomized controlled trials did not differ significantly from epidemiological studies and nonsystematic review articles in 1991 but clearly became the second-cited study design in 2001. Epidemiological studies, nonsystematic review articles, and decision and cost-effectiveness analyses had relatively similar impact; case reports received negligible citations. Meta-analyses were cited significantly more often than all other designs after adjusting for year of publication, high journal impact factor, and country of origin. When limited to studies addressing treatment effects, meta-analyses received more citations than randomized trials. CONCLUSION: Overall, the citation impact of various study designs is commensurate with most proposed hierarchies of evidence.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 497 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs 1992A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction 2001Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies 2002Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.1987The Medical Review Article: State of the Science 1996Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved?

Cited by

2008Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review 2021Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines 2018Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality 2014Using Publication Metrics to Highlight Academic Productivity and Research Impact 2016Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015 2011Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing 2013

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