Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The journal impact factor (IF) is often used as a surrogate marker for methodological quality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relation between the journal IF and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Surgical RCTs published in PubMed in 1999 and 2009 were identified. According to IF, RCTs were divided into groups of low (<2), median (2-3) and high IF (>3), as well as into top-10 vs all other journals. Methodological quality characteristics and factors concerning funding, ethical approval and statistical significance of outcomes were extracted and compared between the IF groups. Additionally, a multivariate regression was performed. RESULTS: The median IF was 2.2 (IQR 2.37). The percentage of 'low-risk of bias' RCTs was 13% for top-10 journals vs 4% for other journals in 1999 (P < 0.02), and 30 vs 12% in 2009 (P < 0.02). Similar results were observed for high vs low IF groups. The presence of sample-size calculation, adequate generation of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis were independently associated with publication in higher IF journals; as were multicentre trials and multiple authors. CONCLUSION: Publication of RCTs in high IF journals is associated with moderate improvement in methodological quality compared to RCTs published in lower IF journals. RCTs with adequate sample-size calculation, generation of allocation or intention-to-treat analysis were associated with publication in a high IF journal. On the other hand, reporting a statistically significant outcome and being industry funded were not independently associated with publication in a higher IF journal.