Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: N-of-1 trials, named single case experiment, are single-subject, randomized and crossover trials performed within individual. However, publications of n-of-1 trials on high impact factor (IF) medical journals have been few.
Objectives: To address issues and improve numbers of n-of-1 trials in high impact medical journals.
Methods: We identified n-of-1 trial publications from electronic databases included PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, SCI, Clinical Trials Registration and Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, CBM). Three researchers have individually assessed these studies for there advantages using Epidata 3.1 and Endnote X5.
Results: We finally include 111 n-of-1 trials. 10 (9.01%) trials were published on journals which are not indexed in SCI, whereas 10 (9.01%) trials were on journals, whose IF were between 0∼1 in 2011. 24 (21.62%) and 29 (26.13%) trials reported by journals between IF 1∼2 and 2∼3. 31 (27.92%) trials publishing on journals whose IF were more than 3, up to 10. 7 (6.31%) on high IF journals such as the Lancet, BMJ and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Conclusions: It is important to offer compelling ways of how to address issues which there are few n-of-1 trial publications. First, doing n-of-1 trial should be often put forward well. Second, it is important to critically discuss social benefits and role in the research process and scrutinize how this may influence the data gathered. Third, results should be generally considered to be more research-driven. At last, there should be needs for transparency in presenting the conceptual structures and particular theoretical perspectives.
Objectives: To address issues and improve numbers of n-of-1 trials in high impact medical journals.
Methods: We identified n-of-1 trial publications from electronic databases included PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, SCI, Clinical Trials Registration and Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, CBM). Three researchers have individually assessed these studies for there advantages using Epidata 3.1 and Endnote X5.
Results: We finally include 111 n-of-1 trials. 10 (9.01%) trials were published on journals which are not indexed in SCI, whereas 10 (9.01%) trials were on journals, whose IF were between 0∼1 in 2011. 24 (21.62%) and 29 (26.13%) trials reported by journals between IF 1∼2 and 2∼3. 31 (27.92%) trials publishing on journals whose IF were more than 3, up to 10. 7 (6.31%) on high IF journals such as the Lancet, BMJ and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Conclusions: It is important to offer compelling ways of how to address issues which there are few n-of-1 trial publications. First, doing n-of-1 trial should be often put forward well. Second, it is important to critically discuss social benefits and role in the research process and scrutinize how this may influence the data gathered. Third, results should be generally considered to be more research-driven. At last, there should be needs for transparency in presenting the conceptual structures and particular theoretical perspectives.