Cited by 38scientometrics and bibliometrics researchPsychology Research and BibliometricsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

Open access
Catalá-López, Ferrán, Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael, Caulley, Lisa, Hutton, Brian, Tabarés-Seisdedos, Rafael, Moher, David, Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo·2020·Trials

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. RESULTS: We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965-2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the "Bland-Altman method") and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13063-019-3944-9

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many research projects in the USA are funded by private initiatives, unlike most other countries.

    “Also, many research projects in the USA are funded by private initiatives, unlike most other countries 29 , 30 , 31 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results (Funding source; page not available) list several US-based industry funders associated with many RCT-related articles, supporting the point that private funding is substantial. But the table identifies funders’ countries, not where projects were conducted, and it does not establish that the USA differs from most other countries in reliance on private funding. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The USA played a central role in the collaborations identified in this study.

    “The USA played a central role in the collaborations identified in this study, corroborating a previous study in the biomedical field 29 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 131 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Catalá-López, F., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Caulley, L., Hutton, B., Tabarés-Seisdedos, R., Moher, D., & Alonso-Arroyo, A.
Affiliations
  • Universitat de València (ES)
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Catalá-López, Ferrán
Venue
Trials
Published
2020-01-07
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
34-34
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3000566943
Cited by
38
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBERSAM G24)
  • University of Ottawa (Research Chair)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (New Investigator Award)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, research productivity, international research collaboration, research funding sources, citation analysis, co-word network analysis, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, pharmaceutical industry funding
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publications, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Journal Impact Factor

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