Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation

Pastorino, Roberta; Milovanovic, Sonja; Stojanovic, Jovana; Efremov, Ljupcho; Amore, Rosarita; Boccia, Stefania

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154217

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This opinion was based on the assumption that the OA publishers would take over an increasing part of the publishing industry and would not provide the same level of rigorous peer review as traditional subscription publishers, which would result in a decline in the quality of scholarly publishing [9]. However, there is evidence that the overall quality of OA journal publishing is comparable to that in traditional subscription publishing [10, 11]. The aim of this study was to assess the completeness of results reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in traditional subscription journals (members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [ICMJE] [12]) and in OA journals (two oldest journal consortia: Public Library of Science [PLoS] journals and BioMedCentral [BMC] series journals).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study

Martinić-Cezar

Marušić

2019

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOpen access (OA) journals are becoming a publication standard for health research, but it is not clear how they differ from traditional subscription journals in the quality of research reporting. We assessed the completeness of results reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in these journals.MethodsWe used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Checklist for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) to assess the completeness of reporting in abstracts of parallel-design RCTs published in subscription journals (n = 149; New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Lancet) and OA journals (n = 119; BioMedCentral series, PLoS journals) in 2016 and 2017.ResultsAbstracts in subscription journals completely reported 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77–81%) of 16 CONSORT-A items, compared with 65% (95% CI, 63–67%) of these items in abstracts from OA journals (P < 0.001, chi-square test). The median number of completely reported CONSORT-A items was 13 (95% CI, 12–13) in subscription journal articles and 11 (95% CI, 10–11) in OA journal articles. Subscription journal articles had significantly more complete reporting than OA journal articles for nine CONSORT-A items and did not differ in reporting for items trial design, outcome, randomization, blinding (masking), recruitment, and conclusions. OA journals were better than subscription journals in reporting randomized study design in the title.ConclusionAbstracts of randomized controlled trials published in subscription medical journals have greater completeness of reporting than abstracts published in OA journals. OA journals should take appropriate measures to ensure that published articles contain adequate detail to facilitate understanding and quality appraisal of research reports about RCTs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study

Martinić-Cezar

Marušić

2019

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our model is only moderately fitted, accounting for approximately 70% of the variance of the total citations. Some factors, such as the number of authors, article length, and open access status, may be potential predictors of citations [6,24,25]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations for Randomized Controlled Trials in Sepsis Literature: The Halo Effect Caused by Journal Impact Factor

Zhang

Poucke

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citations for randomized controlled trials (RCT) are important for the dissemination of study results. However, predictors of citations for RCTs have not been investigated. The study aimed to investigate the predictors of citations for RCTs in sepsis literature. RCTs that investigated the efficacy of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes in sepsis patients were included, and publication dates were restricted to the period from 2000 to 2016. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews and interventions. A multivariable linear regression model was built to investigate the independent variables associated with total citations. In total, 160 RCTs met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The median of total citations was 28.5 (IQR: 6–76). The journal impact factor (IF) for articles was 6.312 (IQR: 3.143–7.214). The dependent variable was transformed by the square root to improve normality and meet the assumption of homoscedasticity. The journal IF (coefficient: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.25) was independently associated with total citations. Large samples were associated with more total citations (coefficient: 0.0026; 95% CI: 0.0013, 0.0039). The study demonstrated that the journal IF was a major determinant of the RCT’s total citation number.

show abstract

“…High-Quality was defined as a “yes” score in ≥ 50% of all items[ 8 ]. The non-randomized studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale[ 9 ]. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, or when necessary a third review author (JWM) was consulted.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgery for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: A systematic review

Verstraelen¹,

Fievez²,

Janssen³

et al. 2017

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMTo systematically search literature and determine a preferable surgical procedure in patients with failed conservative treatment of calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder.METHODSThe electronic online databases MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE (through OVID), CINAHL (through EB- SCO), Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched in May 2016. Eligible for inclusion were all available studies with level II and level III evidence (LoE). Data was assessed and extracted by two independent review authors using a specifically for this study designed data extraction form.RESULTSSix studies (294 surgically treated shoulders) were included in this review. No significant differences between the three available treatment options (acromioplasty with the removal of the calcific deposits, acromioplasty or solely the removal of the calcific deposits) were detected regarding the functional and clinical outcome. The follow-up ranged from 12 mo to 5 years. Complication rates were low. No reoperations were necessary and the only reported complication was adhesive capsulitis, which in all cases could be treated conservatively with full recovery.CONCLUSIONWe found that all three available treatment options show good functional and clinical outcomes in the short and midterm. However, a favorable procedure is difficult to determine due to the lack of high-quality comparing studies.

show abstract

Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study

Citations for Randomized Controlled Trials in Sepsis Literature: The Halo Effect Caused by Journal Impact Factor

Surgery for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About