Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As systematic reviews' limited coverage of the medical literature necessitates decision-making based on unsystematic review, we investigated a possible advantage of systematic review (aside from dataset size and systematic analysis): does systematic review avoid potential bias in sampling primary studies from high impact factor journals? If randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in higher-impact journals present different treatment benefits than RCTs reported in lower-impact journals, readers who focus on higher-impact journals for their rapid literature reviews may introduce bias which could be mitigated by complete, systematic sampling.

Methods

We randomly sampled Cochrane Library (20 July 2005) treatment reviews that measured mortality as a binary outcome

SUBMITTER: Saginur M 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7069162 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature