IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v50y2001i3d10.1023_a1010598313062.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating publication trends in clinical research: How reliable are medical databases?

Author

Listed:
  • Tiiu Ojasoo

    (Agence Nationale d'Accréditation et d'Evaluation en Santé (ANAES))

  • Hervé Maisonneuve

    (Paris University (VII))

  • Jean-Christophe Doré

    (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to draw attention to the possible existence of "quirk", inbibliographic databases and to discuss their implications. We analysed the time-trends of"publication types" (PTs) relating to clinical medicine in the most frequently searched medicaldatabase, MEDLINE. We counted the number of entries corresponding to 10 PTs indexed inMEDLINE (1963-1998) and drew up a matrix of [10 PTs × 36 years] which we analysed bycorrespondence factor analysis (CFA). The analysis showed that, although the "internal clock" ofthe database was broadly consistent, there were periods of erratic activity. Thus, observed trendsmight not always reflect true publication trends in clinical medicine but quirks in MEDLINEindexing of PTs. There may be, for instance, different limits for retrospective tagging of entriesrelating to different PTs. The time-trend for Reviews of Reported Cases differed substantiallyfrom that of other publication types. Despite the quirks, quite rational explanations could be provided for the strongest correlationsamong PTs. The main factorial map revealed how the advent of the Randomised Controlled Trial(RCT) and the accumulation of a critical mass of literature may have increased the rate ofpublication of research syntheses (meta-analyses, practice guidelines...). The RCT is now theiogold standardls in clinical investigation and is often a key component of formal "systematicreviews" of the literature. Medical journal editors have largely contributed to this situation andthus helped to foster the birth and development of a new paradigm, "evidence based medicine"which assumes that expert opinion is biased and therefore relies heavily — virtually exclusively —on critical analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Our exploratory factor analysis, however, leadsus to question the consistency of MEDLINEs indexing procedures and also the rationale forMEDLINE's choice of descriptors. Databases have biases of their own, some of which are notindependent of expert opinion. User-friendliness should not make us forget that outputs depend onhow the databases are constructed and structured.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiiu Ojasoo & Hervé Maisonneuve & Jean-Christophe Doré, 2001. "Evaluating publication trends in clinical research: How reliable are medical databases?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(3), pages 391-404, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:50:y:2001:i:3:d:10.1023_a:1010598313062
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1010598313062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1010598313062
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1010598313062?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henk F. Moed, 2000. "Bibliometric Indicators Reflect Publication and Management Strategies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 323-346, February.
    2. T. Ojasoo & J. C. Doré, 1999. "Citation bias in medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(1), pages 81-94, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Teresa Antonio-García & Irene López-Navarro & Jesús Rey-Rocha, 2014. "Determinants of success for biomedical researchers: a perception-based study in a health science research environment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1747-1779, December.
    2. Rodrigo Costas & María Bordons, 2011. "Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 145-161, July.
    3. Hui Xuan Tan & Ephrance Abu Ujum & Kwai Fatt Choong & Kuru Ratnavelu, 2015. "Impact analysis of domestic and international research collaborations: a Malaysian case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 885-904, January.
    4. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    5. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    6. Jiancheng Guan & Xia Gao, 2008. "Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 357-379, May.
    7. Antonio Ferrara & Andrea Bonaccorsi, 2016. "How robust is journal rating in Humanities and Social Sciences? Evidence from a large-scale, multi-method exercise," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 279-291.
    8. Szu-chia Lo, 2007. "Patent analysis of genetic engineering research in Japan, Korea and Taiwan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 183-200, January.
    9. Sanda Hasenay & Đurđica Ačkar, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Research of Food Industry By-Products in the Period 1976–2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Rodriguez, Victor & Janssens, Frizo & Debackere, Koenraad & De Moor, Bart, 2008. "On material transfer agreements and visibility of researchers in biotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 89-100.
    11. Robert Braam & Peter Besselaar, 2014. "Indicators for the dynamics of research organizations: a biomedical case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 949-971, June.
    12. Hector Gonzalo Ordóñez‐Matamoros & Susan E. Cozzens & Margarita Garcia, 2010. "International Co‐Authorship and Research Team Performance in Colombia," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 415-431, July.
    13. Feng Li & Yong Yi & Xiaolong Guo & Wei Qi, 2012. "Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 531-542, February.
    14. Xianwen Wang & Xi Zhang & Shenmeng Xu, 2011. "Patent co-citation networks of Fortune 500 companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 761-770, September.
    15. van der Weijden, Inge & de Gilder, Dick & Groenewegen, Peter & Klasen, Eduard, 2008. "Implications of managerial control on performance of Dutch academic (bio)medical and health research groups," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1616-1629, October.
    16. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    17. Carmen Galvez & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2007. "Standardizing formats of corporate source data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 3-26, January.
    18. Teodoro Luque-Martínez & Ignacio Luque-Raya, 2024. "Spanish scientific research by field and subject. Strategic analysis with ARWU indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5265-5285, September.
    19. Arif Mehmood & Byung-Won On & Ingyu Lee & Han Woo Park & Gyu Sang Choi, 2018. "Corroborating social media echelon in cancer research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 801-813, March.
    20. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.

    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:spr:scient:v:50:y:2001:i:3:d:10.1023_a:1010598313062. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.