Cited by 58Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchHealth Sciences Research and Education

Distribution of Study Designs in Four Major US Journals of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Funai, Edmund F., Rosenbush, Emily J., Lee, Men-Jean, Del Priore, Giuseppe·2001·Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation

Abstract

Objective: To classify and compare articles, based on the study design, in four leading US obstetrics and gynecology journals. Methods: One year of each journal, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG), Obstetrics and Gynecology (O&G), Gynecologic Oncology (GO), and Fertility and Sterility (F&S), beginning May 1997, was reviewed. Supplementary issues were excluded from review. The percentage of articles devoted to observational versus experimental study design was determined, and the quality of evidence was assessed including how heavily randomized controlled trials were represented versus other study designs. Results: 1,517 articles were reviewed. The average percentage of clinical research articles was 90.4. The percentage of animal studies were 10.7 (AJOG), 1.1 (O&G), 1.1 (GO) and 4.2 (F&S) (χ 2 p < 0.001). There were 5.3, 1.9, 6.5, and 7.5% basic science articles, respectively (χ 2 p = 0.007). The average percentage of observational articles was 68.2 and that of experimental articles was 14.1. The percentages of total articles classified as controlled experimental were 10.9 (AJOG), 14.6 (O&G), 5.1 (GO), and 15.2 (F&S) (χ 2 p = 0.01). There were 8.7, 11.1, 3.3 and 9.5% randomized controlled trials, respectively (χ 2 p = 0.008). Conclusions: The majority of research reviewed was clinical, and more than half of the articles were observational. Under the US Preventative Services Task Force rating system, the randomized control trial is given the highest rating – class I evidence. The drive toward evidence-based clinical practice may not be fully supported by researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, as reflected by submissions to and publications in the major obstetrics and gynecology journals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000052882

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Funai, E. F., Rosenbush, E. J., Lee, M.-J., & Del Priore, G.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2001
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
8-11
ISSN
  • 0378-7346 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-002X
OpenAlex
W1980365151
Cited by
58
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
research design, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, evidence-based medicine, obstetrics and gynecology journals, quality of evidence, animal studies, basic research, clinical research articles, publication trends
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Gynecology, Humans, Obstetrics, Periodicals as Topic, Epidemiologic Research Design, Epidemiologic Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review