Positive Results Bias and Impact Factor in Ophthalmology

Michael Mimouni · Mark Krauthammer · Assaf Gershoni · Francis B. Mimouni · Ронит Нешер

27 citations0/0 files storedCurrent Eye Research

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

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

PURPOSE: Previous studies in several fields of medicine have reported an association between the result of a trial (positive versus negative) and the impact factor of the journal in which it is published. The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that in the field of ophthalmology: (1) studies with positive results have a greater chance of being published in journals with a higher impact factor; (2) likewise, studies with a larger number of participants are more likely to be published in journals with a higher impact factor. METHODS: In this retrospective study, consecutive randomized, controlled trials conducted in the field of ophthalmology between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2013 were retrieved from PubMed. Each study was classified as having either a positive or negative result. A positive result was defined as a study in which there was a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.05). The impact factor of the journal in which the study was published was retrieved. The number of patients enrolled and whether or not the trial was placebo controlled was documented as well. RESULTS: Out of 2524 studies identified, 892 met the inclusion criteria. Studies with positive results were published in journals with a significantly higher impact factor than that of the journals in which negative result studies were published (p < 0.001). Studies with positive results had a slightly larger number of participants than studies with negative results (p = 0.028). In multiple regression analysis, the ranked impact factor was significantly predicted by the primary outcome (positive versus negative results) and the number of participants in a study (total R(2 )= 2.95, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the field of ophthalmology, articles with positive results are currently published in journals with a higher impact factor. This finding supports the ongoing occurrence of positive results bias in the field of ophthalmology.

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 — 27 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Publication bias in clinical research 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research 1997Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects 1987Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for meta‐analysis 2003Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality 2004The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor 1993Measure for Measure in Science 1995Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journals

Cited by

2024The effect of mere presence of smartphone on cognitive functions: A four-level meta-analysis.2018Publication bias and the chase for statistical significance 2023Promotion and caution in research article abstracts: The use of positive, negative and hedge words across disciplines and rankings 2018The fate of abstracts presented at international ophthalmology meetings: 2- and 5-year publication rates 2018Positive results bias in pediatric ophthalmology scientific publications

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

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