Checking important journals for important trials: does this make sense?

Article type
Authors
Ivanova G, Beimfohr C, Matschewsky S, Niederstadt C, Vervölgyi E, Wieseler B, Kaiser T
Abstract
Background: In systematic reviews of pharmaceutical interventions, the results of randomised controlled trials are usually aggregated using meta-analytic techniques. Included trials have different relevance for reported outcomes, which is reflected by their particular weight in each meta-analysis. Newly published trials do not necessarily affect the conclusions of available reviews. As thousands of medical articles are published each month, it would be helpful to know if important trials are published in a limited number of important journals. These journals could then regularly be checked to stay up-to-date.

Objectives: To examine if important trials about pharmaceutical interventions are published in a limited number of important journals.

Methods: A random selection of 200 Cochrane Reviews was drawn. Out of these, all reviews of pharmaceutical interventions including 5 or more trials and reporting at least one outcome using meta-analytic techniques were selected. For all trials included in these reviews, the journal of publication was noted. In addition, the relevance of each trial was determined using a scoring system which included the number of reported outcomes as well as the trial's particular weight for these outcomes.

Results: Sixty-five reviews fulfilled all inclusion criteria. The reviews were published by 31 different Cochrane Groups (maximum: 7 reviews, Acute Respiratory Infections Group). The reviews included 882 different trials (mean: 14+-10), and 1917 outcomes stating each trial's particular weight were reported (mean: 29+-40). The 882 trials were published in 1096 articles in 377 different medical journals. Twenty-three journals contained ten or more of these articles (maximum: 43 (3.9%), Lancet). In total, 326 articles were classified as important (29.7%), and these were published in 159 different journals. Four journals contained 10 or more important articles (maximum: 18 (5.5%), New England Journal of Medicine). The 20 most important journals contained 41.7% of all important articles (136 of 326).

Conclusions: In systematic reviews of pharmaceutical interventions, relevant trials are derived from a wide range of medical journals. To become aware of the most important trials by their time of publication, it might not be reasonable to check only a selection of journals. Other strategies are necessary to be up-to-date in drug therapy.