IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0121054.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Trends in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Joinpoint Regression Analysis of More than 50 Years of Publication Data

Author

Listed:
  • Bui The Hung
  • Nguyen Phuoc Long
  • Le Phi Hung
  • Nguyen Thien Luan
  • Nguyen Hoang Anh
  • Tran Diem Nghi
  • Mai Van Hieu
  • Nguyen Thi Huyen Trang
  • Herizo Fabien Rafidinarivo
  • Nguyen Ky Anh
  • David Hawkes
  • Nguyen Tien Huy
  • Kenji Hirayama

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has developed as the dominant paradigm of assessment of evidence that is used in clinical practice. Since its development, EBM has been applied to integrate the best available research into diagnosis and treatment with the purpose of improving patient care. In the EBM era, a hierarchy of evidence has been proposed, including various types of research methods, such as meta-analysis (MA), systematic review (SRV), randomized controlled trial (RCT), case report (CR), practice guideline (PGL), and so on. Although there are numerous studies examining the impact and importance of specific cases of EBM in clinical practice, there is a lack of research quantitatively measuring publication trends in the growth and development of EBM. Therefore, a bibliometric analysis was constructed to determine the scientific productivity of EBM research over decades. Methods: NCBI PubMed database was used to search, retrieve and classify publications according to research method and year of publication. Joinpoint regression analysis was undertaken to analyze trends in research productivity and the prevalence of individual research methods. Findings: Analysis indicates that MA and SRV, which are classified as the highest ranking of evidence in the EBM, accounted for a relatively small but auspicious number of publications. For most research methods, the annual percent change (APC) indicates a consistent increase in publication frequency. MA, SRV and RCT show the highest rate of publication growth in the past twenty years. Only controlled clinical trials (CCT) shows a non-significant reduction in publications over the past ten years. Conclusions: Higher quality research methods, such as MA, SRV and RCT, are showing continuous publication growth, which suggests an acknowledgement of the value of these methods. This study provides the first quantitative assessment of research method publication trends in EBM.

Suggested Citation

  • Bui The Hung & Nguyen Phuoc Long & Le Phi Hung & Nguyen Thien Luan & Nguyen Hoang Anh & Tran Diem Nghi & Mai Van Hieu & Nguyen Thi Huyen Trang & Herizo Fabien Rafidinarivo & Nguyen Ky Anh & David Hawk, 2015. "Research Trends in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Joinpoint Regression Analysis of More than 50 Years of Publication Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0121054
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121054
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121054&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0121054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tiago S. Jesus & Helen Hoenig & Michel D. Landry, 2020. "Development of the Rehabilitation Health Policy, Systems, and Services Research Field: Quantitative Analyses of Publications over Time (1990–2017) and across Country Type," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Jianan Hong & Jing Chen, 2019. "Clinical Physicians’ Attitudes towards Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Their Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-10, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0121054. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.