Level of evidence and authorship trends of clinical studies in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 1995–2015

Judy, Ryan P.; Shin, Jason J.; McCrum, Christopher L.; Ayeni, Olufemi R.; Samuelsson, Kristian; Musahl, Volker

doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4801-6

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the explosion of clinical studies published, heavy workload and a lack of time make it necessary for clinicians to have a quick overview of study quality, which can be provided by the LOE assessment (Luksanapruksa & Millhouse, 2016). Practices of several journals (Obremskey, Pappas, Attallah-Wasif, Tornetta, & Bhandari, 2005;Swiontkowski, Heckman, & Wright, 2003) and recently published studies (Chen et al, 2019;Joyce, Joyce, Kelly, Kelly, & Carroll, 2015;Judy et al, 2018;Sandhu, 2012;Shafiei & Shahravan, 2013) indicate that LOE in clinical studies is receiving increasing attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

Meng

Xiang

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To analyse the level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies in the field of periodontology, and to investigate whether LOE is a predictor of scientific impact and social impact. Materials and Methods: Clinical studies published in five leading periodontal journals during 2015-2019 were identified. The LOE of included studies were assessed with a modified LOE classification system based on Oxford 2009 LOE, Oxford 2011 LOE and GRADE guidelines. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science and Scopus. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were obtained from Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable generalized estimation equation (GEE) analyses were used to investigate association between LOE and citation count, as well as between LOE and AAS. Results: Among 768 studies included, the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3 and level-4 was 10.4%, 44.8%, 13.7% and 31.1%, respectively. In the multivariable GEE analyses, high LOE was a significant predictor of higher average citation count (p = .010) and higher AAS (p < .001). Conclusion: The LOE of clinical studies in the periodontal field is relatively high in general, although it varies significantly in different journals. Studies with high LOE tend to have greater scientific impact and social impact than low LOE studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

Meng

Xiang

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,25 The mean number of authors per publication in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy ( KSSTA ) has similarly increased from 3.9 to 5.7 over the course of 20 years. 14…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These trends were also noted in AJSM, JBJS , and KSSTA . 2,14,32,36 With internationalization facilitating the broad distribution of these journals, researchers will inherently compete to publish in journals with the furthest influence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, there has been increased focus on publication quality and level of evidence (LOE) in orthopaedic literature. 1,2,5,12,14 Although LOE is not a gold standard measure of quality, studies with higher LOE ratings are generally more reproducible, and outcomes derived from these studies are more reliable with regard to clinical relevance. 17,27 Clinical findings based on more rigorous scientific design are fundamentally more reproducible than decisions based on low methodological quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been a recent push to investigate whether the LOE of journals has improved over time. 1,5,12,14,16-18,32,34…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ten Years of Sports Health: Authorship Characteristics and Levels of Evidence

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, now 10 years into production, has been ranked a top-25 journal in sport sciences and has tripled its impact throughout its existence. Objective: To evaluate authorship trends and levels of evidence (LOE) of articles published in Sports Health from 2009 to 2018. The secondary aim was to analyze funding sources and internationalization throughout the journal’s tenure. Data Sources: All clinical studies published in Sports Health between the years 2009 and 2018 were examined. Study Selection: All publications from the provided years were electronically reviewed by 2 reviewers and evaluated for inclusion criteria. Editorials, society news, memorials, letters to the editor, and corrigenda were excluded. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Data Extraction: Articles were examined for number of authors, presence of female authorship, funding, country of origin, international collaboration, academic degree or certification of first and senior authors, and LOE. Clinical articles were assigned LOE based on guidelines from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results: A total of 654 articles were examined. The percentage of high-LOE studies increased throughout the study period. The percentage of publications with female authors also increased throughout the study period. The mean number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.6 over the 10-year period ( P < 0.05). The percentage of publications with international collaboration stayed consistent, while the number of countries per year increased during the study period. Overall, institutions from 23 countries have published in Sports Health since its inception to the time of this study. Conclusion: Female authorship in Sports Health surpasses industry standards, and the percentage of high-LOE studies remains remarkably high. Sports Health has stayed true to its multidisciplinary scope, as evidenced by the authors’ varying degrees and numerous countries that publish in the journal.

show abstract

Evaluating Strength of Evidence of Pediatric Otolaryngology Research Literature: A 20‐Year Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis: Quantity and quality of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OTL-HNS) research are increasing, yet patterns within Pediatric OTL-HNS publications are unknown. This study examines trends in the level of evidence of pediatric OTL-HNS articles over a 20-year period to quantify the growth and characterize contributing factors.Study Design: Review article. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 12 peer-reviewed OTL-HNS journals at three time-points: 1996, 2006, and 2016. Pediatric-specific OTL-HNS journals were selected; all were among the top 10 highest impact factor journals, with one pediatric-specific and one Canadian journal. Publication details, author characteristics, and study focus were collected. Papers were classified based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence by two independent reviewers.Results: Of the 1,733 articles reviewed, 727 met inclusion criteria. A greater absolute number of pediatric OTL-HNS articles were published over the years studied: from 95 in 1996 to 359 in 2016 (P < .001). As well, the absolute number of high-quality studies has increased over the study period, from 28 articles in 1996 to 100 articles in 2016. However, the relative percentage of high-quality papers remained stable between 27.9% and 32.2% with an average of 29.7% (P = .89). Higher impact factor journals did not tend to publish higher-quality pediatric OTL-HNS articles (P = .48).Conclusions: Over the past 20 years, there is no appreciable improvement in the proportion of high-quality publications in pediatric OTL-HNS; however, there is an overall greater number of high-quality papers within OTL-HNS literature. These findings likely relate to challenges of research within pediatric surgical specialties.

show abstract

Level of evidence and authorship trends of clinical studies in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 1995–2015

Abstract: IV.

Cited by 16 publications

References 23 publications

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

Ten Years of Sports Health: Authorship Characteristics and Levels of Evidence

Evaluating Strength of Evidence of Pediatric Otolaryngology Research Literature: A 20‐Year Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About