Cargando…
Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review
OBJECTIVES: Published negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus neg...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007853 |
_version_ | 1782378108490350592 |
---|---|
author | Charan, Jaykaran Chaudhari, Mayur Jackson, Ryan Mhaskar, Rahul Reljic, Tea Kumar, Ambuj |
author_facet | Charan, Jaykaran Chaudhari, Mayur Jackson, Ryan Mhaskar, Rahul Reljic, Tea Kumar, Ambuj |
author_sort | Charan, Jaykaran |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Published negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals. DESIGN: A systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science focus and impact factor >1 between 2011 and 2013. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. The results were considered positive if the primary outcome was statistically significant and negative otherwise. When the primary outcome was not specified, we used data on the first outcome reported in the history followed by the results section. Differences in various methodological quality domains between positive versus negative studies were assessed by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Seven journals with 259 comparative studies were included in this SR. 24% (63/259) were RCTs, 24% (63/259) cohort studies, and 49% (128/259) case–control studies. 53% (137/259) of studies explicitly reported the primary outcome. Five studies did not report sufficient data to enable us to determine if results were positive or negative. Statistical significance was determined by p value in 78.3% (199/254), CI in 2.8% (7/254), both p value and CI in 11.8% (30/254), and only descriptive in 6.3% (16/254) of studies. The overall methodological quality was poor and no statistically significant differences between reporting of methodological quality were detected between studies with positive versus negative findings. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies. However, the uneven reporting of positive versus negative studies (72% vs 28%) indicates a publication bias in Indian medical journals with an impact factor of >1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4480020 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44800202015-07-02 Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review Charan, Jaykaran Chaudhari, Mayur Jackson, Ryan Mhaskar, Rahul Reljic, Tea Kumar, Ambuj BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: Published negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals. DESIGN: A systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science focus and impact factor >1 between 2011 and 2013. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. The results were considered positive if the primary outcome was statistically significant and negative otherwise. When the primary outcome was not specified, we used data on the first outcome reported in the history followed by the results section. Differences in various methodological quality domains between positive versus negative studies were assessed by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Seven journals with 259 comparative studies were included in this SR. 24% (63/259) were RCTs, 24% (63/259) cohort studies, and 49% (128/259) case–control studies. 53% (137/259) of studies explicitly reported the primary outcome. Five studies did not report sufficient data to enable us to determine if results were positive or negative. Statistical significance was determined by p value in 78.3% (199/254), CI in 2.8% (7/254), both p value and CI in 11.8% (30/254), and only descriptive in 6.3% (16/254) of studies. The overall methodological quality was poor and no statistically significant differences between reporting of methodological quality were detected between studies with positive versus negative findings. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies. However, the uneven reporting of positive versus negative studies (72% vs 28%) indicates a publication bias in Indian medical journals with an impact factor of >1. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4480020/ /pubmed/26109118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007853 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Health Services Research Charan, Jaykaran Chaudhari, Mayur Jackson, Ryan Mhaskar, Rahul Reljic, Tea Kumar, Ambuj Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review |
title | Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review |
title_full | Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review |
title_short | Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review |
title_sort | comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in indian medical journals: a systematic review |
topic | Health Services Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007853 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT charanjaykaran comparisonofmethodologicalqualityofpositiveversusnegativecomparativestudiespublishedinindianmedicaljournalsasystematicreview AT chaudharimayur comparisonofmethodologicalqualityofpositiveversusnegativecomparativestudiespublishedinindianmedicaljournalsasystematicreview AT jacksonryan comparisonofmethodologicalqualityofpositiveversusnegativecomparativestudiespublishedinindianmedicaljournalsasystematicreview AT mhaskarrahul comparisonofmethodologicalqualityofpositiveversusnegativecomparativestudiespublishedinindianmedicaljournalsasystematicreview AT reljictea comparisonofmethodologicalqualityofpositiveversusnegativecomparativestudiespublishedinindianmedicaljournalsasystematicreview AT kumarambuj comparisonofmethodologicalqualityofpositiveversusnegativecomparativestudiespublishedinindianmedicaljournalsasystematicreview |