A bibliometric analysis of five major anesthesia journals found that only 18.6% of pages contained clinically relevant trials, and this proportion was inversely related to the journal's impact factor.
High-impact anesthesia journals publish fewer clinically relevant trials; this association leaves open whether metrics undervalue practical evidence.
Clinicians performing evidence-based anesthesia rely on anesthesia journals for clinically relevant information. The objective of this study was to analyze the proportion of clinically relevant articles in five high impact anesthesia journals. We evaluated all articles published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anesthesia, Anesthesia, and Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica from January to June, 2000. Articles were assessed and classified according to type, outcome, and design; 1379 articles consisting of 5468 pages were evaluated and categorized. The most common types of article were animal and laboratory research (31.2%) and randomized clinical trial (20.4%). A clinically relevant article was defined as an article that used a statistically valid method and had a clinically relevant end-point. Altogether 18.6% of the pages had as their subject matter clinically relevant trials. We compared the Journal Impact Factor (a measure of the number of citations per article in a journal) and the proportion of clinically relevant pages and found that they were inversely proportional to each other.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lauritsen et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: