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

Abstract

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...

Methodological quality of systematic reviews and clinical trials on women's health published in a Brazilian evidence-based health journal

“…Articles published in medical journals are important sources of information and medical education for OB-GYNs and clinicians in general. Although systematic reviews (SRs) and clinical trials (CTs) are considered the highest level of evidence (3), the quality of their methodology is not homogeneous, and these publications should be as rigorously evaluated as other types of studies (4). Thus, readers and users of SRs and CTs should maintain a critical perspective and look carefully at the methodological quality of the existing publications.…”

“…SRs involve an exhaustive review of the literature to answer a clearly defined clinical question using a systematic, transparent and explicit methodology to identify, select, critically appraise and synthesize all of the existing evidence (4). Conducting an SR is a complex task, and flaws are possible in this process; these factors lead to variations in the quality of published SRs.…”

Checklist for Reporting Results Using Observational Descriptive Studies as Research Designs: The MInCir Initiative

“…There is strong evidence that a large part of the questions that are generated in clinical research originate later observational studies (Glasziou et al, 2004;Torloni & Riera, 2010), and this, because observational studies play an important role in research on the benefits and harms of interventions (Black,1996;Grootendorst et al, 2010), detect rare or late adverse effects of treatments (Papanikolaou et al, 2006;Vandenbroucke, 2006), etc.…”

Hierarchy of evidence referring to the central nervous system in a high-impact radiation oncology journal: a 10-year assessment. Descriptive critical appraisal study

“…From a broader perspective, the methodological quality and level of evidence of published articles are important determinants of how many times an article is cited, which therefore affects the impact factor of that journal and can also play a major role in the clinical transfer of knowledge. 5,6 This has become an essential aspect of the evaluation of scientific journals. 6 In 2003, prominent journals began to use evidence hierarchies to rank the published studies.…”

“…5,6 This has become an essential aspect of the evaluation of scientific journals. 6 In 2003, prominent journals began to use evidence hierarchies to rank the published studies. 7,8 As a result, evidence-based medicine concepts were adopted by the conferences and symposia of the main specialties.…”