Evaluating publication trends in clinical research: How reliable are medical databases?

Tiiu Ojasoo (), Hervé Maisonneuve and Jean-Christophe Doré
Additional contact information
Tiiu Ojasoo: Agence Nationale d'Accréditation et d'Evaluation en Santé (ANAES)
Hervé Maisonneuve: Paris University (VII)
Jean-Christophe Doré: Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle

Scientometrics, 2001, vol. 50, issue 3, No 2, 404 pages

Abstract: Abstract The aim of this study was to draw attention to the possible existence of "quirk", inbibliographic databases and to discuss their implications. We analysed the time-trends of"publication types" (PTs) relating to clinical medicine in the most frequently searched medicaldatabase, MEDLINE. We counted the number of entries corresponding to 10 PTs indexed inMEDLINE (1963-1998) and drew up a matrix of [10 PTs × 36 years] which we analysed bycorrespondence factor analysis (CFA). The analysis showed that, although the "internal clock" ofthe database was broadly consistent, there were periods of erratic activity. Thus, observed trendsmight not always reflect true publication trends in clinical medicine but quirks in MEDLINEindexing of PTs. There may be, for instance, different limits for retrospective tagging of entriesrelating to different PTs. The time-trend for Reviews of Reported Cases differed substantiallyfrom that of other publication types. Despite the quirks, quite rational explanations could be provided for the strongest correlationsamong PTs. The main factorial map revealed how the advent of the Randomised Controlled Trial(RCT) and the accumulation of a critical mass of literature may have increased the rate ofpublication of research syntheses (meta-analyses, practice guidelines...). The RCT is now theiogold standardls in clinical investigation and is often a key component of formal "systematicreviews" of the literature. Medical journal editors have largely contributed to this situation andthus helped to foster the birth and development of a new paradigm, "evidence based medicine"which assumes that expert opinion is biased and therefore relies heavily — virtually exclusively —on critical analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Our exploratory factor analysis, however, leadsus to question the consistency of MEDLINEs indexing procedures and also the rationale forMEDLINE's choice of descriptors. Databases have biases of their own, some of which are notindependent of expert opinion. User-friendliness should not make us forget that outputs depend onhow the databases are constructed and structured.

Date: 2001
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1010598313062 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:50:y:2001:i:3:d:10.1023_a:1010598313062

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1023/A:1010598313062

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().