Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research Integrity definitions and challenges

Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past 2 decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity.

Health emergencies, science contrarianism and populism: A scoping review

Populism has emerged as a central explanation employed by both media outlets and scholars for the mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis. Nonetheless, the relationship between public health and populism extends before and beyond the pandemic. This paper offers a comprehensive overview of existing evidence and theoretical conceptualisations on the intersection of populism, health emergencies, and contrarian scientific positions, drawing from a diverse range of disciplines. I conducted a scoping review of 283 original studies, analysing their analytical framework, geographic focuses, and methodological approaches. Employing quantitative text analysis, I summarised the research field into 18 common topics, organised into five coherent categories: citizen's perspective, political elites, political communication, pandemic consequences, and non-COVID-related issues. While the scholarly interest in this area has surged since the onset of the pandemic, it has predominantly concentrated on specific cases, such as Brazil and the US, often conflating different policy types. The evidence summary elucidates that populism assumes varying roles within distinct contexts, and there is no linear relationship between political populism and specific approaches to health crises and science. I further compare definitions of populism within the context of health and scientific positions. I propose that future research should employ a policy typology for health emergency responses, assessing political positions based on policy arenas. This paper contributes to the understanding of the complex interplay between political populism, contrarian scientific perspectives, and public health.

Reporting and Representativeness of Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status in Systemic Sclerosis Randomized Trials: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess how and to what extent socioeconomic status and ethnicity/race of participants are reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on systemic sclerosis (SSc), and to estimate the representativeness of different ethnic/racial groups in SSc RCTs.

METHODS

We searched all published RCTs on SSc indexed in PubMed. We retrieved information on main features of RCTs published from 2000 onward and recorded for each study whether race/ethnicity was reported; how ethnicity/race was defined and assigned; and the number of patients included for each racial/ethnic group. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with race/ethnicity reporting. Proportion of races/ethnicities included in US-based RCTs on SSc was examined and compared with US demographic data.

RESULTS

We included 106 studies, mostly conducted in Europe (42%) or North America (25%), published after 2010 (74%), and enrolling a total of 6,693 patients. About one-third of studies provided information about race/ethnicity, with no improved reporting over time. Only 2 papers reported patient's socioeconomic status. Study location (US or intercontinental) was the only significant factor associated with a better reporting of race/ethnicity in multivariable analysis. In studies where race/ethnicity was reported, White patients were mostly represented (79%), followed by Asian (7%), and African American (6%). In the sensitivity analysis limited to studies from the US, underrepresentation of African American patients was observed in the 2000-2010 time period, but not later.

CONCLUSION

Documentation of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status is poor in RCTs on SSc. More effort should be made to document race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status and to promote diversity in SSc RCTs.

Are current clinical studies on artificial intelligence-based medical devices comprehensive enough to support a full health technology assessment? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence-based Medical Devices (AI-based MDs) are experiencing exponential growth in healthcare. This study aimed to investigate whether current studies assessing AI contain the information required for health technology assessment (HTA) by HTA bodies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology to extract articles published between 2016 and 2021 related to the assessment of AI-based MDs. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, technology, algorithms, comparators, and results. AI quality assessment and HTA scores were calculated to evaluate whether the items present in the included studies were concordant with the HTA requirements. We performed a linear regression for the HTA and AI scores with the explanatory variables of the impact factor, publication date, and medical specialty. We conducted a univariate analysis of the HTA score and a multivariate analysis of the AI score with an alpha risk of 5 %.

RESULTS

Of 5578 retrieved records, 56 were included. The mean AI quality assessment score was 67 %; 32 % of articles had an AI quality score ≥ 70 %, 50 % had a score between 50 % and 70 %, and 18 % had a score under 50 %. The highest quality scores were observed for the study design (82 %) and optimisation (69 %) categories, whereas the scores were lowest in the clinical practice category (23 %). The mean HTA score was 52 % for all seven domains. 100 % of the studies assessed clinical effectiveness, whereas only 9 % evaluated safety, and 20 % evaluated economic issues. There was a statistically significant relationship between the impact factor and the HTA and AI scores (both p = 0.046).

DISCUSSION

Clinical studies on AI-based MDs have limitations and often lack adapted, robust, and complete evidence. High-quality datasets are also required because the output data can only be trusted if the inputs are reliable. The existing assessment frameworks are not specifically designed to assess AI-based MDs. From the perspective of regulatory authorities, we suggest that these frameworks should be adapted to assess the interpretability, explainability, cybersecurity, and safety of ongoing updates. From the perspective of HTA agencies, we highlight that transparency, professional and patient acceptance, ethical issues, and organizational changes are required for the implementation of these devices. Economic assessments of AI should rely on a robust methodology (business impact or health economic models) to provide decision-makers with more reliable evidence.

CONCLUSION

Currently, AI studies are insufficient to cover HTA prerequisites. HTA processes also need to be adapted because they do not consider the important specificities of AI-based MDs. Specific HTA workflows and accurate assessment tools should be designed to standardise evaluations, generate reliable evidence, and create confidence.

Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential resources for the clinicians. They allow to evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the evidence to support clinical decision-making if they are adequately reported. Little is known in the rehabilitation field about the completeness of reporting of SRs and its relationship with the risk of bias (ROB).

OBJECTIVES

Primary: 1) To evaluate the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals by evaluating their adherence to the PRISMA 2009 checklist, 2) To investigate the relationship between ROB and completeness of reporting. Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and journals and study characteristics.

METHODS

A random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals was indexed under the "rehabilitation" category in the InCites database. Two independent reviewers evaluated adherence to the PRISMA checklist and assessed ROB using the ROBIS tool. Overall adherence and adherence to each PRISMA item and section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (impact factor, publication options, publication year, and study protocol registration).

RESULTS

The mean overall PRISMA adherence across the 200 studies considered was 61.4%. Regression analyses show that having a high overall ROB is a significant predictor of lower adherence (B=-7.1%; 95%CI -12.1, -2.0). Studies published in fourth quartile journals displayed a lower overall adherence (B= -7.2%; 95%CI -13.2, -1.3) than those published in first quartile journals; the overall adherence increased (B= 11.9%; 95%CI 5.9, 18.0) if the SR protocol was registered. No association between adherence, publication options, and publication year was found.

CONCLUSION

Reporting completeness in rehabilitation SRs is suboptimal and is associated with ROB, impact factor, and study registration. Authors of SRs should improve adherence to the PRISMA guideline, and journal editors should implement strategies to optimize the completeness of reporting.

Methodological approaches for assessing certainty of the evidence in umbrella reviews: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The number of umbrella reviews (URs) that compiled systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR-MAs) has increased dramatically over recent years. No formal guidance for assessing the certainty of evidence in URs of meta-analyses exists nowadays. URs of non-interventional studies help establish evidence linking exposure to certain health outcomes in a population. This study aims to identify and describe the methodological approaches for assessing the certainty of the evidence in published URs of non-interventions.

METHODS

We searched from 3 databases including PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library from May 2010 to September 2021. We included URs that included SR-MAs of studies with non-interventions. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. We compared URs characteristics stratified by publication year, journal ranking, journal impact factor using Chi-square test.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine URs have been included. Most were SR-MAs of observational studies evaluating association of non-modifiable risk factors with some outcomes. Only half (56.6%) of the included URs assessed the certainty of the evidence. The most frequently used criteria is credibility assessment (80.4%), followed by GRADE approach (14.3%). URs published in journals with higher journal impact factor assessed certainty of evidence than URs published in lower impact group (77.1 versus 37.2% respectively, p < 0.05). However, criteria for credibility assessment used in four of the seven URs that were published in top ranking journals were slightly varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of URs of MAs of non-interventional studies have assessed the certainty of the evidence, in which criteria for credibility assessment was the commonly used method. Guidance and standards are required to ensure the methodological rigor and consistency of certainty of evidence assessment for URs.

Faculty appointment and promotion in Taiwan's medical schools, a systematic analysis

BACKGROUND

A rigorous faculty appointment and promotion (FAP) system is vital for the success of any academic institution. However, studies examining the FAP system in Asian universities are lacking. We surveyed the FAP policies of Taiwan's medical schools and identified an overreliance on the CJA score (manuscript Category, Journal quality, and Author order). The potential shortcomings of this metric and recommendations for refinement were discussed.

METHODS

We obtained the FAP documents from all 12 medical schools in Taiwan, and analyzed their use of traditional versus non-traditional criteria for FAP according to a published methodology. The influence of the journal impact factor (JIF) on the FAP process was quantified by comparing its relative weight between papers with two extreme JIFs. To better understand the research impact and international standing of each school, we utilized the public bibliographic database to rank universities by the number of papers, and the proportions of papers within the top 10% or 50% citation.

RESULTS

Compared with other countries, Taiwan's medical schools focus more on the quantifiable quality of the research, mostly using a "CJA" score that integrates the category, JIF or ranking, and authorship of a paper, with the JIF being the most influential factor. The CJA score for an article with a JIF of 20 can be up to three times the threshold for promotion to Assistant Professor. The emphasis on JIF is based on a presumed correlation between JIF and citation counts. However, our analysis shows that Taiwan's medical schools have lower-than-average citation counts despite a competitive rank in the number of publications.

CONCLUSIONS

The JIF plays an unrivaled role in determining the outcome of FAP in Taiwan's medical schools, mostly via the CJA system. The questionable effectiveness of the current system in elevating the international standing of Taiwan's higher-education institutions calls for a re-examination of the FAP system. We recommend a reduction in the relative importance of CJA score in the FAP system, adopting more rigorous metrics such as the h-index for evaluating research quality, and supporting more research aimed at improving the FAP system.

The impact of radiomics for human papillomavirus status prediction in oropharyngeal cancer: systematic review and radiomics quality score assessment

Purpose

Human papillomavirus (HPV) status assessment is crucial for decision making in oropharyngeal cancer patients. In last years, several articles have been published investigating the possible role of radiomics in distinguishing HPV-positive from HPV-negative neoplasms. Aim of this review was to perform a systematic quality assessment of radiomic studies published on this topic.

Methods

Radiomics studies on HPV status prediction in oropharyngeal cancer patients were selected. The Radiomic Quality Score (RQS) was assessed by three readers to evaluate their methodological quality. In addition, possible correlations between RQS% and journal type, year of publication, impact factor, and journal rank were investigated.

Results

After the literature search, 19 articles were selected whose RQS median was 33% (range 0–42%). Overall, 16/19 studies included a well-documented imaging protocol, 13/19 demonstrated phenotypic differences, and all were compared with the current gold standard. No study included a public protocol, phantom study, or imaging at multiple time points. More than half (13/19) included feature selection and only 2 were comprehensive of non-radiomic features. Mean RQS was significantly higher in clinical journals.

Conclusion

Radiomics has been proposed for oropharyngeal cancer HPV status assessment, with promising results. However, these are supported by low methodological quality investigations. Further studies with higher methodological quality, appropriate standardization, and greater attention to validation are necessary prior to clinical adoption.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00234-022-02959-0.

Definition and Characteristics of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Preclinical and Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are widely used in preclinical and clinical research. Despite minimal criteria to define MSCs provided by the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), concerns have been raised about inconsistent descriptions of cell products used. To address the question "How are MSCs currently defined and characterized?" we conducted a scoping review on original MSC preclinical and clinical studies published over a 3-month period. Selected studies identified from a systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase were categorized as follows: Clinical, Animal, Biology, or Biomaterial studies. Data were extracted from a randomly selected subsample of studies. We extracted information, including epidemiological characteristics of studies, study design, ISCT criteria, and MSC characterization and culture condition. A total of 1053 articles were included and among them, 318 articles were analyzed. Overall, 18% of the articles explicitly referred to the ISCT minimal criteria for MSC. MSC characteristics and culture conditions were inconstantly reported (eg, viability assay reported in only 18% of the articles). Only 20% of documents reported at least 1 functional assay. Clinical studies showed inconsistent completeness in reporting relevant information on the MSC characterization and cell manufacturing processes. These results suggest that further development and implementation of a consensus definition of MSCs and reporting guidelines are needed to enhance rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in MSC research.

Characteristics and Research Techniques Associated with the Journal Impact Factor and Other Key Metrics in Pharmacology Journals

In the present age, there is intense pressure on researchers to publish their research in ‘high-impact factor’ journals. It would be interesting to understand the trend of research publications in the field of pharmacology by exploring the characteristics of research articles, including research techniques, in relation to the journal’s key bibliometrics, particularly journal impact factor (JIF), the seemingly most mentioned metric. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and research techniques in relation to research articles in pharmacology journals with higher or lower JIF values. A cross-sectional study was conducted on primary research journals under the ‘Pharmacology and Pharmacy’ category. Analysis of 768 original research articles across 32 journals (with an average JIF of 2.565 ± 0.887) demonstrated that research studies involving molecular techniques, in vivo experiments on animals, and bioinformatics and computational modeling were significantly associated with a higher JIF value of the journal in which such contributions were published. Our analysis suggests that research studies involving such techniques/approaches are more likely to be published in higher-ranked pharmacology journals.

Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society

Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.

Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions

OBJECTIVES

To determine the: 1) quality of articles cited in systematic reviews (SRs); 2) methodological quality of the SRs; and 3) impact of quality on level 1A evidence.

METHODS

SRs related to musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions were identified. The methodological quality of the SRs and articles cited by the SRs were assessed by two blinded reviewers. Data analysis was performed by a third blinded researcher. Additional comparisons were made based on the Journal Impact Factor, spin, financial bias, and conflict of interest.

RESULTS

Twenty-four SRs were identified; 21/24 SRs had 'critically low' quality on the AMSTAR 2. Thirty-four percent of included studies were 'low quality,' and 58% of SRs included studies that had unreported external validity. One-half of the SRs represented 'spin,' and one-third of the SRs generated conclusions based on low-quality clinical trials.

DISCUSSION

The 'critically low' SRs methodological quality was exacerbated by low-quality research inclusion. Most SRs failed to follow best practices, including prospective registration and integration of professional librarians in the search process. Based on the high proportion of SRs that include low-quality trials and overall low methodological quality, further discussion regarding practice recommendations on level vs. quality of evidence is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1a.