Preliminary Reports and the Rates of Publication of Follow-up Reports in Peer-reviewed, Indexed Journals

Cloft, Harry J.; Shengelaia, George G.; Marx, William F.; Kallmes, David F.

doi:10.1097/00001888-200106000-00017

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are comparable to an earlier study showing that only 27% of ‘preliminary’ or ‘pilot’ articles were subsequently followed by a more definitive publication. 2 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, if such early work fails to stimulate future studies, the journal's impact factor will suffer. As a continuation of a previous effort of studying ‘preliminary’ and ‘pilot’ articles, 2 the purpose of the current study was to characterize the subsequent academic relevance of papers with titles containing the phrase ‘Initial Clinical Experience’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘Initial Clinical Experience' articles are poorly cited and negatively affect the impact factor of the publishing journal: a review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe phrase ‘Initial Clinical Experience’ in a manuscript's title implies that the described technique offers promise of future clinical relevance. We assessed, using rates of subsequent citations, the actual academic relevance of such articles in comparison to articles not containing the phrase.DesignWe searched ISI database for articles that included the studied phrase in their titles between 1975 and 2009 and grouped the results by the related medical specialty. We excluded articles from journals with no available impact factor. For each identified article, we extracted number of included patients, citations/year, the average impact factor of the publishing journal over the last five years and the proportion of articles published in the same journal that garnered zero subsequent citations.SettingRetrospective review of a scientific database.ParticipantsNoneMain outcome measuresCitation rateResultsAmong a total of 982,127 articles published in 186 journals representing eight major publishing medical specialties, 531 (0.05%) were Initial Clinical Experience articles. Thirty percent of Initial Clinical Experience articles were never cited compared with 7% of the overall article volume (p < 0.0001). Citations/year for Initial Clinical Experience articles were significantly lower than the median impact factor (p < 0.0001). There was no correlation between citations and number of patients described in the Initial Clinical Experience articles (p = 0.61).ConclusionsInitial Clinical Experience articles are cited less frequently than the average, especially in Cardiovascular, Radiology and Ophthalmology journals.

show abstract

“…Our results are comparable to an earlier study showing that only 27% of ‘preliminary’ or ‘pilot’ articles were subsequently followed by a more definitive publication. 2 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Initial Clinical Experience' articles are poorly cited and negatively affect the impact factor of the publishing journal: a review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has recently been debated. [25][26][27] Secondly, there may be some case selection bias. It is well known from literature surveys that the best EUS results are usually achieved in cases of advanced cancer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

You get what you expect? A critical appraisal of imaging methodology in endosonographic cancer staging

Meining

Dittler²,

Wolf³

et al. 2002

Gut

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims: After an initial period of excellent results with newly introduced imaging procedures, the accuracy of most imaging methods declines in later publications. This effect may be due to various methodological factors involved in the research. Using the example of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), this study aimed to elucidate one of the factors possibly concerned-namely, the extent to which the examiners are adequately blinded. Methods: Well documented videotapes of EUS examinations of 101 patients with resected tumours of the oesophagus (n=32), stomach (n=33), or pancreas (n=36) were evaluated in three different ways: firstly, retrospective analysis under routine clinical conditions; secondly, evaluation of EUS videotapes in a strictly blinded fashion; and thirdly, evaluation of the same videotapes but with additional information from the video endoscopic appearance (oesophageal/gastric cancer) or from computed tomography results (pancreatic cancer). Histopathological T staging was used as the reference method. Results: The accuracy of EUS in T staging was 73% under routine conditions. This value fell significantly to 53% for the blinded evaluation but increased again to 62% for the unblinded evaluation. The sensitivity of staging T1/T2 tumours was 72% (routine EUS), 59% (blinded EUS), and 70% (unblinded EUS). The respective values for advanced tumours were 85%, 74%, and 72%. Conclusions: The accuracy of EUS for T staging in clinical practice appears to be lower than has previously been reported. In addition, blinded analysis produced significantly poorer results, which improved when another test was added. It may be speculated that better results with routine EUS obtained in a clinical setting are due to additional sources of information.

show abstract

“…Publication bias that relates to the direction of the findings is also known as positive outcome bias 3,5 . The definition of positive outcome varies in published work and variously takes into account factors, such as comparison with established treatments, support of the study objective and statistical significance 2–4,6–10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,5 The definition of positive outcome varies in published work and variously takes into account factors, such as comparison with established treatments, support of the study objective and statistical significance. [2][3][4][6][7][8][9][10] Publication bias based on the strength of the findings (rather than the direction) is more clearly defined, as the definition usually relies on the presence of statistical significance. 4,[11][12][13][14] Often, however, several results are provided with varying significance levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Bias in Papers Presented to the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting

Harris

Mourad

Kadir

et al. 2006

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Preliminary Reports and the Rates of Publication of Follow-up Reports in Peer-reviewed, Indexed Journals

Abstract: Only 27% of studies published as preliminary or pilot reports were subsequently followed by a more definitive publication. While the words preliminary and pilot suggest that publication of further, refined work is pending, this is often not the case.

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

‘Initial Clinical Experience' articles are poorly cited and negatively affect the impact factor of the publishing journal: a review

‘Initial Clinical Experience' articles are poorly cited and negatively affect the impact factor of the publishing journal: a review

You get what you expect? A critical appraisal of imaging methodology in endosonographic cancer staging

Publication Bias in Papers Presented to the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About