Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis

Abstract

BackgroundResearch collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta-analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded.ResultsOverall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland).ConclusionsOur analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries publishing meta-analyses of randomized trials in high impact medical journals. This valuable information may be used to strengthen scientific capacity for collaboration and to help to promote a global agenda for future research of excellence.

Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

“…In addition, restrictions and difficulties in conducting clinical research in resource-poor situations result in the exclusion of many of these countries from the planning, conduct and publication of RCTs [67][68][69]. As might be expected, our results support previous findings that low-and middle-income countries [31,70,71] had minimal contributions in articles published in major medical journals. For example, a previous study [70] showed that most of the authors of original papers published in five high-impact general medical journals (including The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, The BMJ and Annals of Internal Medicine) were more frequently affiliated with institutions in the same country as the journal.…”

“…Specifically, one researcher (AA-A) checked the names by which an individual author appeared in two or more different forms (for example, "John McMurray" or "John J. McMurray" or "John J.V. McMurray") using coincidence in that author's place(s) of work as the basic criterion for normalisation (for example, University of Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom) [31], and a second researcher (FC-L or RA-B) verified the data. A threshold of 30 articles was applied to review 200 names by which an individual author appeared in two or more different forms.…”

Statins Use and Risk of Cataracts

“…When performed well and reported transparently, incorporating explicit and detailed methods and results, they produce information that can have undoubtedly major impact on medical practice. 2,3 In recent years, there has been accumulating evidence concerning the association of statins with incident cataracts. Randomized clinical trials have not identified an association between statins and cataracts, on the contrary, observational studies have reported conflicting associations between statin use and incident cataracts.…”

Randomized trials in top dermatological journals, 2009-13

“…The small contribution of non‐U.S.A. and non‐European researchers is particularly noteworthy, because in many of these countries, medicine and clinical training remain underdeveloped . These results should be biased as the British Journal of Dermatology , Acta Dermato‐Venereologica and Experimental Dermatology are European journals and the Journal of Investigative Dermatology , JAMA Dermatology and Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology are U.S. journals.…”

“…The small contribution of non-U.S.A. and non-European researchers is particularly noteworthy, because in many of these countries, medicine and clinical training remain underdeveloped. 14 The funding rates for original research have increased in the literature over the past decade. 11,12 Our study shows that three out of four RCTs in the analysed journals received financial support, and in more than 50% of cases, such support came from industry.…”