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 Web of Science (59)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Quality of Care  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Nikolaos A. Patsopoulos, MD; Apostolos A. Analatos; John P. A. Ioannidis, MD

JAMA. 2005;293:2362-2366.

Context  The relative merits of various study designs and their placement in hierarchies of evidence are often discussed. However, there is limited knowledge about the relative citation impact of articles using various study designs.

Objective  To determine whether the type of study design affects the rate of citation in subsequent articles.

Design and Setting  We measured the citation impact of articles using various study designs—including meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, case reports, nonsystematic reviews, and decision analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis—published in 1991 and in 2001 for a sample of 2646 articles.

Main Outcome Measure  The citation count through the end of the second year after the year of publication and the total received citations.

Results  Meta-analyses received more citations than any other study design both in 1991 (P<.05 for all comparisons) and in 2001 (P<.001 for all comparisons) and both in the first 2 years and in the longer term. More than 10 citations in the first 2 years were received by 32.4% of meta-analyses published in 1991 and 43.6% of meta-analyses published in 2001. Randomized controlled trials did not differ significantly from epidemiological studies and nonsystematic review articles in 1991 but clearly became the second-cited study design in 2001. Epidemiological studies, nonsystematic review articles, and decision and cost-effectiveness analyses had relatively similar impact; case reports received negligible citations. Meta-analyses were cited significantly more often than all other designs after adjusting for year of publication, high journal impact factor, and country of origin. When limited to studies addressing treatment effects, meta-analyses received more citations than randomized trials.

Conclusion  Overall, the citation impact of various study designs is commensurate with most proposed hierarchies of evidence.

Author Affiliations: Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit and Clinical Trials and Evidence Based Medicine Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece (Drs Patsopoulos and Ioannidis and Mr Analatos); Department of Immunology and Histocompatibility, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece (Dr Patsopoulos and Mr Analatos); Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (Dr Ioannidis).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses
Ioannidis
CMAJ 2009;181:488-493.
FULL TEXT  

Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals
Kulkarni et al.
JAMA 2009;302:1092-1096.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Physicians' knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses: A cross-sectional survey
De Vito et al.
Eur J Public Health 2009;19:297-302.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessing Authority
Rennie and Chalmers
JAMA 2009;301:1819-1821.
FULL TEXT  

Differential Citation Rates of Major Cardiovascular Clinical Trials According to Source of Funding: A Survey From 2000 to 2005
Conen et al.
Circulation 2008;118:1321-1327.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Should Systematic Reviewers Search for Randomized, Controlled Trials Published as Letters?
Iansavichene et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;148:714-715.
FULL TEXT  

The Assessment of Publication Quality
Swaminathan et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2008;106:1590-1590.
FULL TEXT  

Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study
Lokker et al.
BMJ 2008;336:655-657.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Required sample size and nonreplicability thresholds for heterogeneous genetic associations
Moonesinghe et al.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008;105:617-622.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study
Yank et al.
BMJ 2007;335:1202-1205.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Persistence of Contradicted Claims in the Literature
Tatsioni et al.
JAMA 2007;298:2517-2526.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Association Between Funding and Quality of Published Medical Education Research
Reed et al.
JAMA 2007;298:1002-1009.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their Editors' views
Chew et al.
JRSM 2007;100:142-150.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis
Patsopoulos et al.
BMJ 2006;332:1061-1064.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study
Biondi-Zoccai et al.
BMJ 2006;332:202-209.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Mortality from cirrhosis: lack of progress over the last 35 years
Gluud
Gut 2005;54:1523-1526.
FULL TEXT  

Do scientific publications change anything?
Pless
Inj. Prev. 2005;11:193-194.
FULL TEXT  

What's new in the other general journals
Tonks
BMJ 2005;330:1171-1172.
FULL TEXT