Assessment of Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017

Joshua D. Niforatos · Matthew Weaver · Michael E. Johansen

100 citations0/0 files storedJAMA Internal Medicine

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 Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the most robust and reliable forms of evidence to guide clinical practice.Previous research has demonstrated year-over-year increases in the number of published RCTs between 1950 and 2007 1 as well as increases in the number of published SRMAs through 2016.2,3 The increase in SRMAs is needed to update cumulative evidence, 2 although some investigators speculate that SRMAs may also serve as "easily publishable units or marketing tools."2,3 Given this context, we sought to compare publication trends overall and across clinical topic areas among SRMAs and RCTs over the past 22 years.

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 — 100 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

Cited by

2021The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence 2021Methodological quality was critically low in 9/10 systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients—A methodological study 2023Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatment interventions for Internet use disorders: Critical analysis of the methodical quality according to the PRISMA guidelines 2022Assessing the robustness of results from clinical trials and meta-analyses with the fragility index 2021The application of AMSTAR2 in 32 overviews of systematic reviews of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: A cross‐sectional study 2022Assessing and visualizing fragility of clinical results with binary outcomes in R using the fragility package 2022Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review: A Concise Review

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.