Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Growth in the number of research papers and journals makes it increasingly difficult for clinicians to keep up-to-date. Studies of the ‘scatter’ of research evidence have occurred in a limited number of specialties, but not stroke.
Objectives: To estimate the degree of scatter of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews in stroke, changes over time (5 yearly intervals), and identify patterns in which journals publish the largest proportion of evidence.
Methods: Longitudinal analysis of all stroke RCTs and systematic reviews published between 1946 and 2010. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE using a combination of the Cochrane Stroke Group search strategy, randomised controlled trial as publication type, and a systematic review filter.
Results: There has been an exponential increase in stroke RCTs and systematic reviews, as well as the number of journals publishing them. For example, from 1986 to 1990, there were 803 published RCTs scattered across 275 journals; in 2006–2010, there were 4217 RCTs across 850 journals (see Fig. 1). Similarly for systematic reviews - in 1986–1990, there were 18 reviews across 18 journals; by 2006–2010, 2237 reviews were scattered across 682 journals. There is little overlap between the top 10 journals that publish stroke RCTs and those publishing reviews. Only a small proportion of evidence (<10% of RCTs or reviews) is published in stroke journals.
Conclusions: Trials and reviews relevant to stroke care are now published in more journals than clinicians can feasibly read to keep up-to-date. Clinicians who read only journals in their specialty area will miss many new relevant papers. Solutions which can help clinicians to cope will be discussed.
Objectives: To estimate the degree of scatter of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews in stroke, changes over time (5 yearly intervals), and identify patterns in which journals publish the largest proportion of evidence.
Methods: Longitudinal analysis of all stroke RCTs and systematic reviews published between 1946 and 2010. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE using a combination of the Cochrane Stroke Group search strategy, randomised controlled trial as publication type, and a systematic review filter.
Results: There has been an exponential increase in stroke RCTs and systematic reviews, as well as the number of journals publishing them. For example, from 1986 to 1990, there were 803 published RCTs scattered across 275 journals; in 2006–2010, there were 4217 RCTs across 850 journals (see Fig. 1). Similarly for systematic reviews - in 1986–1990, there were 18 reviews across 18 journals; by 2006–2010, 2237 reviews were scattered across 682 journals. There is little overlap between the top 10 journals that publish stroke RCTs and those publishing reviews. Only a small proportion of evidence (<10% of RCTs or reviews) is published in stroke journals.
Conclusions: Trials and reviews relevant to stroke care are now published in more journals than clinicians can feasibly read to keep up-to-date. Clinicians who read only journals in their specialty area will miss many new relevant papers. Solutions which can help clinicians to cope will be discussed.
Images
