 |
|
Negative Results and Impact Factor
A Lesson From Neonatology
Yoav Littner, MD;
Francis B. Mimouni, MD, FAAP, FACN;
Shaul Dollberg, MD, FACN;
Dror Mandel, MD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1036-1037.
Objective To test the hypothesis that articles with negative results are more likely than articles with positive results to be published in journals with lower impact factor.
Design and Setting We selected all of the randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted during the neonatal period between October 1, 1998, and October 1, 2003. Trials were classified as having positive results or negative results (significant or no significant difference, respectively). Only studies dealing with primary outcomes (efficacy) were included.
Main Outcome Measures The impact factor of each journal was determined, and the sample size for each study was noted.
Results There were 233 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of impact factor (P = .03) but not sample size (P = .30). Impact factor correlated with both sample size and the type of study results (positive results vs negative results; P<.05).
Conclusion Articles with negative results are more likely than articles with positive results to be published in journals with lower impact factor.
Author Affiliations: Department of Neonatology, Lis Maternity Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
An infallible recipe? A story of cinnamon, souffle and meta-analysis
Van Biesen et al.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:2729-2732.
FULL TEXT
Critical appraisal and positive outcome bias in case reports published in brazilian dental journals.
Oliveira and Leles
J Dent Educ 2006;70:869-874.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
