34860 Levels of evidence within dermatology; bibliometric trends compared with general medicine and general surgery from 2008-2017: A bibliometric systematic review

Abstract

Despite adaptation of high-evidence guidelines, such as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), low-reporting quality persists in scientific publications across specialties, including dermatology. A bibliometric systematic review was conducted to compare level 1 evidence publications in Dermatology, General Surgery and General Medicine from 2008-2017. Publications were identified through Clarivate’s 2016 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and PubMed (1/1/2008-12/31/2017) in accordance with PRISMA. Three JCR categories were selected: General Medicine, General Surgery, and Dermatology. The top 10 medical journals in each category, based on 2016 JCR Eigenfactor score, were included. Publications were categorized by article-type, “Systematic Reviews (SRs),” “Meta-Analyses (MAs),” and “Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)” and compared from ‘2008-2012’ and ‘2013-2017.’ 127,796 publications were identified: 11,990 SRs, MAs, and RCTs were included. Data analysis revealed that high-evidence publications in Dermatology from 2008-2012 to 2013-2017 increased by 25.03% (7.91% vs. 9.89%); General Surgery increased by 24.68% (6.97% vs. 8.69%); and General Medicine decreased by 10.32% (12.02% vs. 10.78%). There was a statistically significant change in the percentage of SRs (P = .0071) and MAs (P = .0142) in Dermatology, as well as SRs (P = .0053) in General Surgery. Cross-specialty analysis between 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 showed statistically significant differences in SRs and MAs between General Medicine and Dermatology (P = .0049), and General Medicine and Surgery (P = .0038). Dermatology has shown significant growth in high-evidence publications, comparable to General Surgery, and approaching the total percentage of high-evidence General Medicine publications. While this is promising, examining the quality of these publications and striving for increased evidence in dermatology publications is imperative.