Doubling the Impact: Publication of Systematic Review Articles in Orthopaedic Journals

Mohit Bhandari, Victor Manuel Montori, Philip J. Devereaux, Nancy L. Wilczynski, Douglas Morgan, R. Brian Haynes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Investigators aim to publish their research papers in top journals to disseminate their findings to the widest possible audience. Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. We hypothesized that the number of citations (a measure of scholarly interest) for systematic reviews (or meta-analyses) published in leading orthopaedic journals would be greater than the number of citations for narrative reviews published in the same journals. Methods: We identified fifteen journals that had high Science Citation Index impact factors for the orthopaedic subspecialty and were believed to have a higher yield of studies and reviews of scientific merit and clinical relevance. For the year 2000, six research associates applied methodological criteria to each article in each issue of the fifteen journals to determine whether the article was scientifically sound (rigorous versus nonrigorous). Of the 3916 articles identified, 2331 were original or review articles. We queried the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) Web of Science database to ascertain, as of March 2003, the number of subsequent citations to each one of the reviews after its original publication in all journals that published both narrative and systematic reviews. Results: Of the 2331 articles published across the fifteen journals in the year 2000, 110 were review articles. Only seventeen (15%) of the 110 reviews met our criteria for systematic reviews with rigor. Rigorous systematic reviews received more than twice the mean number of citations compared with other systematic or narrative reviews (13.8 compared with 6.0, p = 0.008). The rigor of a review was a significant predictor of the number of citations in other orthopaedic journals (p = 0.01). In addition, rigor was significantly associated with the number of citations in nonorthopaedic journals (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that journal editors and authors can improve the relevance and scholarly interest in their reviews (as shown by the number of citations) by meeting standard guidelines for methodological rigor.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1012-1016
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A
Volume86
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Orthopedics
Publications
Information Science
Research
Meta-Analysis
Research Personnel
Databases
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Bhandari, M., Montori, V. M., Devereaux, P. J., Wilczynski, N. L., Morgan, D., & Haynes, R. B. (2004). Doubling the Impact: Publication of Systematic Review Articles in Orthopaedic Journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A, 86(5), 1012-1016.

Doubling the Impact : Publication of Systematic Review Articles in Orthopaedic Journals. / Bhandari, Mohit; Montori, Victor Manuel; Devereaux, Philip J.; Wilczynski, Nancy L.; Morgan, Douglas; Haynes, R. Brian.

In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A, Vol. 86, No. 5, 05.2004, p. 1012-1016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bhandari, M, Montori, VM, Devereaux, PJ, Wilczynski, NL, Morgan, D & Haynes, RB 2004, 'Doubling the Impact: Publication of Systematic Review Articles in Orthopaedic Journals', Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 1012-1016.
Bhandari, Mohit ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Devereaux, Philip J. ; Wilczynski, Nancy L. ; Morgan, Douglas ; Haynes, R. Brian. / Doubling the Impact : Publication of Systematic Review Articles in Orthopaedic Journals. In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A. 2004 ; Vol. 86, No. 5. pp. 1012-1016.
@article{335e17432311491d83de791c6b762df9,
title = "Doubling the Impact: Publication of Systematic Review Articles in Orthopaedic Journals",
abstract = "Background: Investigators aim to publish their research papers in top journals to disseminate their findings to the widest possible audience. Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. We hypothesized that the number of citations (a measure of scholarly interest) for systematic reviews (or meta-analyses) published in leading orthopaedic journals would be greater than the number of citations for narrative reviews published in the same journals. Methods: We identified fifteen journals that had high Science Citation Index impact factors for the orthopaedic subspecialty and were believed to have a higher yield of studies and reviews of scientific merit and clinical relevance. For the year 2000, six research associates applied methodological criteria to each article in each issue of the fifteen journals to determine whether the article was scientifically sound (rigorous versus nonrigorous). Of the 3916 articles identified, 2331 were original or review articles. We queried the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) Web of Science database to ascertain, as of March 2003, the number of subsequent citations to each one of the reviews after its original publication in all journals that published both narrative and systematic reviews. Results: Of the 2331 articles published across the fifteen journals in the year 2000, 110 were review articles. Only seventeen (15{\%}) of the 110 reviews met our criteria for systematic reviews with rigor. Rigorous systematic reviews received more than twice the mean number of citations compared with other systematic or narrative reviews (13.8 compared with 6.0, p = 0.008). The rigor of a review was a significant predictor of the number of citations in other orthopaedic journals (p = 0.01). In addition, rigor was significantly associated with the number of citations in nonorthopaedic journals (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that journal editors and authors can improve the relevance and scholarly interest in their reviews (as shown by the number of citations) by meeting standard guidelines for methodological rigor.",
author = "Mohit Bhandari and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Devereaux, {Philip J.} and Wilczynski, {Nancy L.} and Douglas Morgan and Haynes, {R. Brian}",
year = "2004",
month = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "86",
pages = "1012--1016",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume",
issn = "0021-9355",
publisher = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Doubling the Impact

T2 - Publication of Systematic Review Articles in Orthopaedic Journals

AU - Bhandari, Mohit

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Devereaux, Philip J.

AU - Wilczynski, Nancy L.

AU - Morgan, Douglas

AU - Haynes, R. Brian

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - Background: Investigators aim to publish their research papers in top journals to disseminate their findings to the widest possible audience. Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. We hypothesized that the number of citations (a measure of scholarly interest) for systematic reviews (or meta-analyses) published in leading orthopaedic journals would be greater than the number of citations for narrative reviews published in the same journals. Methods: We identified fifteen journals that had high Science Citation Index impact factors for the orthopaedic subspecialty and were believed to have a higher yield of studies and reviews of scientific merit and clinical relevance. For the year 2000, six research associates applied methodological criteria to each article in each issue of the fifteen journals to determine whether the article was scientifically sound (rigorous versus nonrigorous). Of the 3916 articles identified, 2331 were original or review articles. We queried the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) Web of Science database to ascertain, as of March 2003, the number of subsequent citations to each one of the reviews after its original publication in all journals that published both narrative and systematic reviews. Results: Of the 2331 articles published across the fifteen journals in the year 2000, 110 were review articles. Only seventeen (15%) of the 110 reviews met our criteria for systematic reviews with rigor. Rigorous systematic reviews received more than twice the mean number of citations compared with other systematic or narrative reviews (13.8 compared with 6.0, p = 0.008). The rigor of a review was a significant predictor of the number of citations in other orthopaedic journals (p = 0.01). In addition, rigor was significantly associated with the number of citations in nonorthopaedic journals (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that journal editors and authors can improve the relevance and scholarly interest in their reviews (as shown by the number of citations) by meeting standard guidelines for methodological rigor.

AB - Background: Investigators aim to publish their research papers in top journals to disseminate their findings to the widest possible audience. Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. We hypothesized that the number of citations (a measure of scholarly interest) for systematic reviews (or meta-analyses) published in leading orthopaedic journals would be greater than the number of citations for narrative reviews published in the same journals. Methods: We identified fifteen journals that had high Science Citation Index impact factors for the orthopaedic subspecialty and were believed to have a higher yield of studies and reviews of scientific merit and clinical relevance. For the year 2000, six research associates applied methodological criteria to each article in each issue of the fifteen journals to determine whether the article was scientifically sound (rigorous versus nonrigorous). Of the 3916 articles identified, 2331 were original or review articles. We queried the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) Web of Science database to ascertain, as of March 2003, the number of subsequent citations to each one of the reviews after its original publication in all journals that published both narrative and systematic reviews. Results: Of the 2331 articles published across the fifteen journals in the year 2000, 110 were review articles. Only seventeen (15%) of the 110 reviews met our criteria for systematic reviews with rigor. Rigorous systematic reviews received more than twice the mean number of citations compared with other systematic or narrative reviews (13.8 compared with 6.0, p = 0.008). The rigor of a review was a significant predictor of the number of citations in other orthopaedic journals (p = 0.01). In addition, rigor was significantly associated with the number of citations in nonorthopaedic journals (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that journal editors and authors can improve the relevance and scholarly interest in their reviews (as shown by the number of citations) by meeting standard guidelines for methodological rigor.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2442480415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2442480415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15118046

AN - SCOPUS:2442480415

VL - 86

SP - 1012

EP - 1016

JO - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

JF - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

SN - 0021-9355

IS - 5

ER -