Designs of studies published in two Brazilian journals of orthopedics and sports medicine, recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science

Riera, Rachel

doi:10.1590/s1516-31802009000600007

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, many steps have been taken to disseminate the EBM concepts that apply to the particular characteristics of orthopedics, 6,7 along with critical appraisal of the methodological quality of published studies. 3,[8][9][10][11][12][13] In accordance with this paradigm, efforts have been undertaken within hand surgery to follow the EBM movement. [14][15][16] However, there is a lack of data on the quality of the evidence produced to date, particularly with regard to literature published within specific countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchy of evidence relating to hand surgery in Brazilian orthopedic journals

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: There is no systematic assessment of the quality of scientific production in the specialty of hand surgery in our setting. This study aimed to systematically assess the status of evidence generation relating to hand surgery and to evaluate the reproducibility of the classification method based on an evidence pyramid. RESULTS: A total of 1,150 articles were evaluated, and 83 (7.2%) were included in the final analysis. Studies with evidence level IV (case series) accounted for 41 (49%) of the published papers. Studies with evidence level V (other studies) accounted for 12 (14.5%) of the papers. Only two studies (2.4%) were ranked as level I or II. The inter-rater reproducibility was excellent (k = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS:Hand surgery articles corresponded to less than one tenth of Brazilian orthopedic production. Studies with evidence level IV were the commonest type. The reproducibility of the classification stratified by evidence level was almost perfect.RESUMO CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Não há uma avaliação sistemática da qualidade da produção científica na especialidade de cirurgia da mão em nosso meio. Este estudo objetiva analisar o status da geração de evidências em cirurgia da mão, por meio de avaliação sistematizada, além de avaliar a reprodutibilidade da classificação baseada na pirâmide das evidências. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Estudo secundário realizado pela Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp) e Faculdade Estadual de Medicina de Marília (Famema).MÉTODOS: De forma independente, dois pesquisadores promoveram uma busca eletrônica dos trabalhos envolvendo cirurgia da mão, no período de 2000-2009, para duas principais revistas na literatura ortopédica nacional (Acta Ortopédica Brasileira e Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia). Os trabalhos identificados foram subsequentemente classificados pelo tipo de delineamento metodológico (revisões sistemáticas da literatura, estudos clínicos randomizados, estudos de coorte, estudos caso-controle, séries de casos e outros estudos) e nível de evidência (I a V). RESULTADOS:Foram avaliados 1.150 artigos, sendo 83 (7,2%) considerados para a análise final. Estudos com nível de evidência IV (séries de caso) correspondem a 41 (49%) das publicações. Estudos nível de evidência V (outros estudos), corresponderam a 12 (14,5%) da amostra. Apenas dois estudos (2,4%) foram identificados como nível I ou II. A reprodutibilidade interobservadores foi excelente (k = 0.94).CONCLUSÕES: Os artigos de cirurgia da mão correspondem a menos de um décimo da produção ortopédica nacional. Estudos nível de evidência IV foram os mais encontrados na literatura nacional. A classificação estratificada por níveis de evidência apresenta reprodutibilidade quase perfeita.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchy of evidence relating to hand surgery in Brazilian orthopedic journals

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eight Brazilian medical journals were recently included in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database 3 and will have their impact factor available from 2010 onwards. Two recently published articles 4,5 have assessed the relevant methodological aspects of articles published in 2007 in four of these journals (Acta Ortopédica Brasileira, Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia and Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular). As a continuation of this series, the present article will analyze the articles published in two additional journals (Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira) during the same year, looking specifically at the number and quality of published systematic reviews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and level of evidence of studies published in two Brazilian medical journals recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science database

Torloni

Riera

2010

Sao Paulo Med. J.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES:The level of evidence and methodological quality of articles published in medical journals are important aids for clinicians in decision-making and also affect journals' impact factor. Although systematic reviews (SR) are considered to represent the highest level of evidence, their methodological quality is not homogeneous and they need to be as carefully assessed as other types of study. This study aimed to assess the design and level of evidence of articles published in 2007, in two recently indexed Brazilian journals (Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira), and to evaluate the methodological quality of the SRs. DESIGN AND SETTING:Descriptive study developed in the Brazilian Cochrane Center, Universidade Federal de São Paulo.METHODS: All 289 published articles were classified according to types of study design and level of evidence. The SRs were critically appraised by two evaluators using the AMSTAR tool. RESULTS:The most frequent design types were cross-sectional studies (39.9%), case reports (15.8%), experimental studies (10.8%) and narrative reviews (7.4%). According to the Oxford criteria, 25.6% of the articles were classified as level 4 or 5 evidence, while 2.8% were level 1. SRs represented only 2% of the published articles and their methodological quality scores were low. CONCLUSIONS:The main design types among the published papers were observational and experimental studies and narrative reviews. SRs accounted for a small proportion of the articles and had low methodological scores. Brazilian medical journals need to encourage publication of greater numbers of clinically relevant papers of high methodological quality.RESUMO CONTEXTO E OBJETIVOS: O nível de evidência e a qualidade metodológica dos artigos publicados em revistas médicas são importantes para auxiliar os clínicos a tomarem decisões e também afetam o fator de impacto dos periódicos. Apesar de as revisões sistemáticas (RS) serem consideradas o maior nível de evidência, sua qualidade metodológica não é homogênea e elas precisam ser avaliadas tão criteriosamente como outros tipos de estudos. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar os desenhos e nível de evidência dos artigos publicados em 2007 em duas revistas brasileiras recentemente indexadas (Clinics e Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira) e avaliar a qualidade metodológica das RS. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL:Estudo descritivo desenvolvido no Centro Cochrane do Brasil, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. MÉTODOS:Todos os 289 artigos publicados foram classificados quanto ao tipo de desenho e nível de evidência. As RS foram analisadas criticamente por dois revisores usando o instrumento AMSTAR.RESULTADOS: Os tipos de desenhos mais frequentes foram os transversais (39,9%), relatos de casos (15,8%), estudos experimentais (10,8%) e revisões narrativas (7,4%). Segundo os critérios de Oxford, 25,6% dos artigos eram de nível 4 ou 5 e 2,8% de nível 1. As RS representaram apenas 2% do total dos artigos publicados e tiveram notas de qualidade metodológica baixas...

show abstract

“…Critical analysis on our own scientific production is little disseminated within orthopedics and traumatology. However, some studies have reported on the status of this scientific production and have identified the most frequent types of studies, in the light of evidence-based medicine,4, 5, 27, 28 or have attempted to compare Brazilian production with what has been published in indexed international journals 29 . The present study has the virtue of including a validated tool for assessing the quality of the scientific method, which makes this approach unique within our setting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective Non-randomized Studies in Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Systematic Assessment of its Methodological Quality

Pignataro

Lins

Oliveira

et al. 2013

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In surgical interventions, randomization and blinding may be difficult to implement. In this situation, non-randomized prospective studies (EPNR) can generate the best evidence. The objective of this study is to evaluate, by means of the scale proposed by Downs & Black, the quality of EPNR published in our country and to assess the interobserver reproducibility of this scale. EPNR published in Acta Ortopedica Brasileira and Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia until 2011 and prior to 2006 were included. Two of us independently applied the Downs & Black scale. The studies were stratified by period of publication, journal and type of intervention. The scores obtained were considered to assess the reliability of the scale and groups comparison. 59 studies were considered, seven excluded during the assessments. There were no differences between the scores, except for the type of intervention, which showed better methodological quality for studies involving clinical interventions (p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient for the Downs & Black score was 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.88), demonstrating good reliability. EPNR present methodological quality similar when stratified by the periodic publication and publication period. Studies with clinical interventions have better methodological quality. The Downs & Black scale shows good interobserver reproducibility.

show abstract

Designs of studies published in two Brazilian journals of orthopedics and sports medicine, recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science

Cited by 6 publications

References 21 publications

Hierarchy of evidence relating to hand surgery in Brazilian orthopedic journals

Hierarchy of evidence relating to hand surgery in Brazilian orthopedic journals

Design and level of evidence of studies published in two Brazilian medical journals recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science database

Prospective Non-randomized Studies in Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Systematic Assessment of its Methodological Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About