Journal impact factor versus the evidence level of articles published in plastic surgery journals.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between impact factor and the level of evidence of articles in plastic surgery journals. The four plastic surgery journals with the top impact factors in 2011 were selected. Articles were selected using the PubMed database between January 1 and December 31, 2011. The journal evidence index was calculated by dividing the number of randomized clinical trials by the total number of articles published in the specific journal, multiplied by 100. This index was correlated to the impact factor of the journal and compared with the average of the other journals. Two investigators independently evaluated each journal, followed by a consensus and assessment of the interexaminer concordance. The kappa test was used to evaluate the concordance between the two investigators and Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate which journal presented the highest number of randomized clinical trials. The journal evidence index values were as follows: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1.70; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 0.40; Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 0.56; and Annals of Plastic Surgery, 0.35. The impact factors of these journals in 2011 were as follows: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 3.382; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 1.494; Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 1.407; and Annals of Plastic Surgery, 1.318. After consensus, the quantity of adequate studies was low and similar between these journals; only the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery showed a higher journal evidence index. The journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery exhibited the highest journal evidence index and had the highest impact factor. The number of adequate articles was low in all of the assessed journals.