Level of evidence in high impact surgical literature: the way forward

Evidence-based medicine stipulates that clinical decision-making should revolve around scientific evidence. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the methodological quality of surgical research recently published in JAMA Surgery, International Journal of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery, the three surgical journals with the highest impact factor. An electronic search of the PUBMED database was performed to retrieve all articles published in the JAMA Surgery, International Journal of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery in the year 2022. Three authors independently reviewed all retrieved articles and methodological designs of the publications were analyzed and rated using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (Oxford Levels of Evidence scale). The initial search identified 1236 articles of which 809 were excluded after title and abstract screening. The remaining 427 underwent full text/methods read, of which 164 did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 273 studies were included in the analysis. The average level of evidence was 2.5 ± 0.8 across all studies assessed. The majority of study designs were comprised of retrospective cohorts (n = 119), prospective cohorts (n = 47), systematic reviews of non RCTs (n = 39), and RCTs (n = 37). There was no significant difference in the average level of evidence between the top three journals (p = 0.50). Most clinical studies in the highest impact factor surgical journals are of level III evidence, consistent with earlier literature. However, our analysis demonstrates a relatively higher percentage of LOE I and II compared to what was previously published in the literature.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Updates in Surgery
Published
2024-08-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01961-w
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.46
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Level of evidence in high impact surgical literature: the way forward

Omar Elsewify, Hassan ElHawary, Jeffrey E. Janis, Jad Abi‐Rafeh et al.
1 citations
Updates in Surgery
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
0.46
article

Level of evidence in high impact surgical literature: the way forward

Omar Elsewify, Hassan ElHawary, Jeffrey E. Janis, Jad Abi‐Rafeh, Joseph Kaleeny, Sukhmeet S. Sachal, Barbara Granicz, Victor Kang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine stipulates that clinical decision-making should revolve around scientific evidence. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the methodological quality of surgical research recently published in JAMA Surgery, International Journal of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery, the three surgical journals with the highest impact factor. An electronic search of the PUBMED database was performed to retrieve all articles published in the JAMA Surgery, International Journal of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery in the year 2022. Three authors independently reviewed all retrieved articles and methodological designs of the publications were analyzed and rated using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (Oxford Levels of Evidence scale). The initial search identified 1236 articles of which 809 were excluded after title and abstract screening. The remaining 427 underwent full text/methods read, of which 164 did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 273 studies were included in the analysis. The average level of evidence was 2.5 ± 0.8 across all studies assessed. The majority of study designs were comprised of retrospective cohorts (n = 119), prospective cohorts (n = 47), systematic reviews of non RCTs (n = 39), and RCTs (n = 37). There was no significant difference in the average level of evidence between the top three journals (p = 0.50). Most clinical studies in the highest impact factor surgical journals are of level III evidence, consistent with earlier literature. However, our analysis demonstrates a relatively higher percentage of LOE I and II compared to what was previously published in the literature.

Updates in SurgeryVol. 77(1)
Western University (CA), McGill University Health Centre (CA), The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US), Université Laval (CA), Indiana University School of Medicine, McGill University (CA), Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
0.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.