Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the most robust and reliable forms of evidence to guide clinical practice. Previous research has demonstrated year-over-year increases in the number of published RCTs between 1950 and 20071 as well as increases in the number of published SRMAs through 2016.2,3 The increase in SRMAs is needed to update cumulative evidence,2 although some investigators speculate that SRMAs may also serve as “easily publishable units or marketing tools.”2,3 Given this context, we sought to compare publication trends overall and across clinical topic areas among SRMAs and RCTs over the past 22 years.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Niforatos JD, Weaver M, Johansen ME. Assessment of Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017. JAMA Intern Med. Published online July 29, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3013
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: