Literature DB >> 16275793

Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology.

Yoav Littner1, Francis B Mimouni, Shaul Dollberg, Dror Mandel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that articles with negative results are more likely than articles with positive results to be published in journals with lower impact factor. DESIGN AND
SETTING: We selected all of the randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted during the neonatal period between October 1, 1998, and October 1, 2003. Trials were classified as having positive results or negative results (significant or no significant difference, respectively). Only studies dealing with primary outcomes (efficacy) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The impact factor of each journal was determined, and the sample size for each study was noted.
RESULTS: There were 233 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of impact factor (P = .03) but not sample size (P = .30). Impact factor correlated with both sample size and the type of study results (positive results vs negative results; P<.05).
CONCLUSION: Articles with negative results are more likely than articles with positive results to be published in journals with lower impact factor.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16275793     DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med        ISSN: 1072-4710


  22 in total

1.  Fighting publication bias: introducing the Negative Results section.

Authors:  Ulrich Dirnagl; Martin Lauritzen
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 2.  Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study.

Authors:  Usama Ahmed Ali; Beata M M Reiber; Joren R Ten Hove; Pieter C van der Sluis; Hein G Gooszen; Marja A Boermeester; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-06-04       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Timely and complete publication of economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Joanna C Thorn; Sian M Noble; William Hollingworth
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Dealing with publication bias in translational stroke research.

Authors:  Shimin Liu
Journal:  J Exp Stroke Transl Med       Date:  2009

5.  Resolving the negative data publication dilemma in translational stroke research.

Authors:  Paul A Lapchak; John H Zhang
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 6.829

Review 6.  A critical appraisal of experimental intracerebral hemorrhage research.

Authors:  Crystal L MacLellan; Rosalie Paquette; Frederick Colbourne
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 6.200

7.  Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Eye and Vision Group Reviews.

Authors:  Michael Mimouni; Francis Mimouni; Fani Segev
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-06-16

Review 8.  Conclusiveness of the Cochrane reviews in nutrition: a systematic analysis.

Authors:  S Cohen; D Mandel; F B Mimouni; R Marom; R Lubetzky
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Methodology and analytic techniques used in clinical research: associations with journal impact factor.

Authors:  Lindsay M Kuroki; Jenifer E Allsworth; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Factors associated with publication of randomized phase iii cancer trials in journals with a high impact factor.

Authors:  P A Tang; G R Pond; S Welch; E X Chen
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.