Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Nov 24:1:2.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-1-2.

Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts

Victor M Montori  1 , Nancy L Wilczynski, Douglas Morgan, R Brian Haynes; Hedges Team
Affiliations

Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts

Victor M Montori et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews summarize all pertinent evidence on a defined health question. They help clinical scientists to direct their research and clinicians to keep updated. Our objective was to determine the extent to which systematic reviews are clustered in a large collection of clinical journals and whether review type (narrative or systematic) affects citation counts.

Methods: We used hand searches of 170 clinical journals in the fields of general internal medicine, primary medical care, nursing, and mental health to identify review articles (year 2000). We defined 'review' as any full text article that was bannered as a review, overview, or meta-analysis in the title or in a section heading, or that indicated in the text that the intention of the authors was to review or summarize the literature on a particular topic. We obtained citation counts for review articles in the five journals that published the most systematic reviews.

Results: 11% of the journals concentrated 80% of all systematic reviews. Impact factors were weakly correlated with the publication of systematic reviews (R2 = 0.075, P = 0.0035). There were more citations for systematic reviews (median 26.5, IQR 12 - 56.5) than for narrative reviews (8, 20, P <.0001 for the difference). Systematic reviews had twice as many citations as narrative reviews published in the same journal (95% confidence interval 1.5 - 2.7).

Conclusions: A few clinical journals published most systematic reviews. Authors cited systematic reviews more often than narrative reviews, an indirect endorsement of the 'hierarchy of evidence'.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Guyatt GH, Haynes B, Jaeschke R, Cook D, Greenhalgh T, Meade M, Green L, Naylor C, Wilson M, McAlister FA, Richardson W, Montori V, Bucher H. Introduction: The philosophy of evidence-based medicine. In: Guyatt GH, Rennie D, editor. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2002. pp. 121–140.
    1. Oxman A, Guyatt GH, Cook D, Montori V. Summarizing the evidence. In: Guyatt GH, Rennie D, editor. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: AMA Press; 2002. pp. 155–173.
    1. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. Jama. 1992;268:240–248. doi: 10.1001/jama.268.2.240. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–488. - PubMed
    1. McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, Straus SE, Lawson FM, Moher D, Mulrow CD. The medical review article revisited: has the science improved? Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:947–951. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources