You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 287 No. 21, June 5, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Communicating to Readers
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (26)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati
What's this?

Comparison of Review Articles Published in Peer-Reviewed and Throwaway Journals

Paula A. Rochon, MD,MPH; Lisa A. Bero, PhD; Ari M. Bay, BSc; Jennifer L. Gold, BSc; Julie M. Dergal, MSc; Malcolm A. Binns, MSc; David L. Streiner, PhD; Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD

JAMA. 2002;287:2853-2856.

Context  To compare the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in peer-reviewed and "throwaway" journals.

Methods  We reviewed articles that focused on the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition published between January 1 and December 31, 1998, in the 5 leading peer-reviewed general medical journals and high-circulation throwaway journals. Reviewers independently assessed the methodologic and reporting quality, and evaluated each article's presentation and readability. Clinical relevance was evaluated independently by 6 physicians.

Results  Of the 394 articles in our sample, 16 (4.1%) were peer-reviewed systematic reviews, 135 (34.3%) were peer-reviewed nonsystematic reviews, and 243 (61.7%) were nonsystematic reviews published in throwaway journals. The mean (SD) quality scores were highest for peer-reviewed articles (0.94 [0.09] for systematic reviews and 0.30 [0.19] for nonsystematic reviews) compared with throwaway journal articles (0.23 [0.03], F2,391 = 280.8, P<.001). Throwaway journal articles used more tables (P = .02), figures (P = .01), photographs (P<.001), color (P<.001), and larger font sizes (P<.001) compared with peer-reviewed articles. Readability scores were more often in the college or higher range for peer-reviewed journals compared with the throwaway journal articles (104 [77.0%] vs 156 [64.2%]; P = .01). Peer-reviewed article titles were judged less relevant to clinical practice than throwaway journal article titles (P<.001).

Conclusions  Although lower in methodologic and reporting quality, review articles published in throwaway journals have characteristics that appeal to physician readers.


Author Affiliations: Kunin-Lunenfeld Applied Research Unit (Drs Rochon and Streiner, Mr Bay, and Mss Gold and Dergal) and Rotman Research Institute (Mr Binns), Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Dr Rochon), Toronto, Ontario; Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, and Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (Dr Bero); Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario (Dr Streiner); and Meyers Primary Care Institute, Fallon Healthcare System, and University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (Dr Gurwitz).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

June 5, 2002
JAMA. 2002;287(21):2875-2876.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

When Does Previous Disclosure Become a 'Prior Publication' Problem?
Langdon-Neuner
Chest 2009;135:233-237.
FULL TEXT  

Continuing Professional Development of Dental Practitioners in Prato, Italy
Nieri and Mauro
J Dent Educ 2008;72:616-625.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Patient-Care Questions that Physicians Are Unable to Answer
Ely et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:407-414.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Proliferation of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Professional Development or Medicine-by-Numbers?
Genuis
J Am Board Fam Med 2005;18:419-425.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Role of Tabloids in Ophthalmic Education: Pro
McDonnell
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1379-1380.
FULL TEXT  

The Role of Tabloids in Ophthalmic Education: Con
Frank
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1380-1382.
FULL TEXT  

Advantages and Potential Dangers of Presentation Before Publication: Third in a Series on Editorship
Bressler et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1045-1048.
FULL TEXT  

Relation between randomized controlled trials published in leading general medical journals and the global burden of disease
Rochon et al.
CMAJ 2004;170:1673-1677.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Validity of Claims Made in Orthopaedic Print Advertisements
Bhattacharyya et al.
JBJS 2003;85:1224-1228.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Increasing the trust in scientific authorship
LAGNADO
Br. J. Psychiatry 2003;183:3-4.
FULL TEXT  

Is academic psychiatry for sale?
Healy and Thase
Br. J. Psychiatry 2003;182:388-390.
FULL TEXT  

Readability of British and American medical prose at the start of the 21st century
Weeks and Wallace
BMJ 2002;325:1451-1452.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.