Relationship between journal impact factor and levels of evidence in anaesthesia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine uses a hierarchy of publication types according to their vulnerability to bias. A widely used measure of journal "quality" is its impact factor, which describes the citation rate of its publications. We investigated the relationship between impact factor for eight anaesthesia journals and publication type with respect to their level of evidence 1-4 using Spearman rank correlation (rho). There were 1418 original publications during 2001 included in the analysis. The number (%) of publication types according to evidence-based medicine level were: level 1: 6 (0.4%), level 2: 533 (38%) level 3: 329 (23%), level 4: 550 (39%). There was no correlation between journal ranking according to impact factor and publication type (rho =-0.03, P= 0.25). The correlation between journal rank and the proportion of publications that were randomized trials was -0.35 (P < 0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of publications was 0.65 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of level 1 or 2 studies was 0.58 (P<0.001). The overall level of evidence published in anaesthesia journals was high. Journal rank according to impact factor is related to the number of publications, but not the proportion of publications that are evidence-based medicine level 1 or 2.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)567-570
Number of pages4
JournalAnaesthesia and intensive care
Volume33
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2005

Keywords

  • Anaesthesia
  • Evidence-based medicine: citation
  • Impact factor

Cite this

@article{1ad5ca45230d450ebdf7d8b766177807,
title = "Relationship between journal impact factor and levels of evidence in anaesthesia",
abstract = "Evidence-based medicine uses a hierarchy of publication types according to their vulnerability to bias. A widely used measure of journal {"}quality{"} is its impact factor, which describes the citation rate of its publications. We investigated the relationship between impact factor for eight anaesthesia journals and publication type with respect to their level of evidence 1-4 using Spearman rank correlation (rho). There were 1418 original publications during 2001 included in the analysis. The number ({\%}) of publication types according to evidence-based medicine level were: level 1: 6 (0.4{\%}), level 2: 533 (38{\%}) level 3: 329 (23{\%}), level 4: 550 (39{\%}). There was no correlation between journal ranking according to impact factor and publication type (rho =-0.03, P= 0.25). The correlation between journal rank and the proportion of publications that were randomized trials was -0.35 (P < 0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of publications was 0.65 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of level 1 or 2 studies was 0.58 (P<0.001). The overall level of evidence published in anaesthesia journals was high. Journal rank according to impact factor is related to the number of publications, but not the proportion of publications that are evidence-based medicine level 1 or 2.",
keywords = "Anaesthesia, Evidence-based medicine: citation, Impact factor",
author = "Bain, {C. R.} and Myles, {Paul S.}",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "567--570",
journal = "Anaesthesia and intensive care",
issn = "0310-057X",
publisher = "Australian Society of Anaesthetists",
number = "5",

}

Relationship between journal impact factor and levels of evidence in anaesthesia. / Bain, C. R.; Myles, Paul S.

In: Anaesthesia and intensive care, Vol. 33, No. 5, 10.2005, p. 567-570.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Relationship between journal impact factor and levels of evidence in anaesthesia

AU - Bain, C. R.

AU - Myles, Paul S.

PY - 2005/10

Y1 - 2005/10

N2 - Evidence-based medicine uses a hierarchy of publication types according to their vulnerability to bias. A widely used measure of journal "quality" is its impact factor, which describes the citation rate of its publications. We investigated the relationship between impact factor for eight anaesthesia journals and publication type with respect to their level of evidence 1-4 using Spearman rank correlation (rho). There were 1418 original publications during 2001 included in the analysis. The number (%) of publication types according to evidence-based medicine level were: level 1: 6 (0.4%), level 2: 533 (38%) level 3: 329 (23%), level 4: 550 (39%). There was no correlation between journal ranking according to impact factor and publication type (rho =-0.03, P= 0.25). The correlation between journal rank and the proportion of publications that were randomized trials was -0.35 (P < 0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of publications was 0.65 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of level 1 or 2 studies was 0.58 (P<0.001). The overall level of evidence published in anaesthesia journals was high. Journal rank according to impact factor is related to the number of publications, but not the proportion of publications that are evidence-based medicine level 1 or 2.

AB - Evidence-based medicine uses a hierarchy of publication types according to their vulnerability to bias. A widely used measure of journal "quality" is its impact factor, which describes the citation rate of its publications. We investigated the relationship between impact factor for eight anaesthesia journals and publication type with respect to their level of evidence 1-4 using Spearman rank correlation (rho). There were 1418 original publications during 2001 included in the analysis. The number (%) of publication types according to evidence-based medicine level were: level 1: 6 (0.4%), level 2: 533 (38%) level 3: 329 (23%), level 4: 550 (39%). There was no correlation between journal ranking according to impact factor and publication type (rho =-0.03, P= 0.25). The correlation between journal rank and the proportion of publications that were randomized trials was -0.35 (P < 0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of publications was 0.65 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of level 1 or 2 studies was 0.58 (P<0.001). The overall level of evidence published in anaesthesia journals was high. Journal rank according to impact factor is related to the number of publications, but not the proportion of publications that are evidence-based medicine level 1 or 2.

KW - Anaesthesia

KW - Evidence-based medicine: citation

KW - Impact factor

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27544504662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 567

EP - 570

JO - Anaesthesia and intensive care

JF - Anaesthesia and intensive care

SN - 0310-057X

IS - 5

ER -