Hepatology Journals Research Articles

S2153 Gender and Regional Trends in Authorship of Clinical Trials Published in Leading Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals From 2009 to 2024

S2153 Gender and Regional Trends in Authorship of Clinical Trials Published in Leading Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals From 2009 to 2024

The GETAID: 40 years of a family story in IBD.

The Groupe d'Etude sur les Affections Inflammatoires Digestives (GETAID) was founded in Paris in 1983 by Professor R Modigliani and colleagues. From the beginning, the aim of this international (France, Belgium and Switzerland), multicentre, French-speaking group was to address clinical questions raised by patients or physicians in their daily practice or the inflammatory bowel diseases community, by focusing on clinical research on treatments through randomised controlled trials, prospective cohorts and cross-sectional studies, quantifying the severity of various facets of the disease when necessary for these studies. This approach very innovative has contributed to the advancement of knowledge in inflammatory bowel diseases by publishing more than 120 original articles in peer-reviewed journals throughout the GETAID 40-year history, most of them in top publications in gastroenterology and hepatology journals. In this paper, we will see what GETAID's contribution has been over the last four decades, review reasons for success and forthcoming challenges.

Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported primary outcomes: A cross-sectional analysis of randomized controlled trials in gastroenterology and hepatology journals.

Previous research has raised concerns regarding inconsistencies between reported and pre-specified outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across various biomedical disciplines. However, studies examining whether similar discrepancies exist in RCTs focusing on gastrointestinal and liver diseases are limited. This study aimed to assess the extent of discrepancies between registered and published primary outcomes in RCTs featured in journals specializing in gastroenterology and hepatology. We retrospectively retrieved RCTs published between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2021 in the top three journals from each quartile ranking of the 2020 Journal Citation Reports within the "Gastroenterology and Hepatology" subcategory. We extracted data on trial characteristics, registration details, and pre-specified versus published primary outcomes. Pre-specified primary outcomes were retrieved from the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Only trials reporting specific primary outcomes were included in analyzing primary outcome discrepancies. We also assessed whether there was a potential reporting bias that deemed to favor statistically significant outcomes. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, univariate analyses, and logistic regression. Of 362 articles identified, 312 (86.2%) were registered, and 79.8% of the registrations (249 out of 312) were prospective. Among the 285 trials reporting primary outcomes, 76 (26.7%) exhibited at least one discrepancy between registered and published primary outcomes. The most common discrepancies included different assessment times for the primary outcome (n = 32, 42.1%), omitting the registered primary outcome in publications (n = 21, 27.6%), and reporting the registered secondary outcomes as primary outcomes (n = 13, 17.1%). Univariate analyses revealed that primary outcome discrepancies were lower in the publication year 2020 compared to year 2021 (OR = 0.267, 95% CI: 0.101, 0.706, p = 0.008). Among the 76 studies with primary outcome discrepancies, 20 (26.3%) studies were retrospectively registered, and 32 (57.1%) of the prospectively registered trials with primary outcome discrepancies showed statistically significant results. However, no significant differences were found between journal quartiles regarding primary outcome consistency and potential reporting bias (p = 0.14 and p = 0.28, respectively). This study highlights the disparities between registered and published primary outcomes in RCTs within gastroenterology and hepatology journals. Attention to factors such as the timing of primary outcome assessments in published trials and the consistency between registered and published primary outcomes is crucial. Enhanced scrutiny from journal editors and peer reviewers during the review process is necessary to ensure the reliability of gastrointestinal and hepatic trials.

Closing the gender gap in gastroenterology leadership: the need for effective and comprehensive allyship

There are clear gender disparities in leadership positions at gastroenterological organisations, with women representing only 19% of all gastroenterology fellowship programme directors and divisional or departmental chairs in academic institutions in the USA1 and only 20% of editorial board members in gastroenterology and hepatology journals.2 To date, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases have each had five or fewer female presidents since they were founded more than 70 years ago.

Comparison of evaluation indexes for Gastroenterology and Hepatology journals in different databases.

BACKGROUNDAccurate assessment of the quality of academic journals is of great significance. While Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated by Clarivate and based upon the Web of Science literature database, and CiteScore (CS), developed by Elseiver and based upon the Scopus database, have enjoyed high uptake worldwide, efforts continue towards creation of other scientometric indexes that will provide ever-greater qualitative insights into journal impact. Such efforts have yielded the newly-launched Journal Article Influence Index (JAII), which is based on the Reference Citation Analysis (RCA) database, an open multidisciplinary citation analysis database based on artificial intelligence technology.AIMTo evaluate and summarize the similarities and differences between JAII and JIF/CS as journal evaluation indicators, and provide an intuitive method for visual representation of the related data.METHODSWe searched the Journal Citation Reports to obtain the 2021 JIF list, downloaded the CS list updated in July on the Scopus website, and collected the comprehensive list of 2022 JAIIs from the RCA database (www.referencecitationanalysis.com).RESULTSOur research results revealed that by breaking through the time limit of mainstream journal evaluation methods, the JAII is able to perform well in data reliability, establishing its benefit as a complementary scientometric index to JIF and CS.CONCLUSION JAII provides comprehensive assessment of the quality and performance of journals.

S1511 Gender Differences in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Authorship: 2000-2020

Introduction: Considering peer-reviewed publications affect female's practice and career in gastroenterology and hepatology field, barriers to female's publishing must be removed. In this study, we aimed to describe gender trends of first and last authors in published manuscripts of gastroenterology and hepatology journals from 2000 to 2020. Furthermore, we assessed the predictors associated with female authorship. Methods: Ten highest impact factor gastroenterology and hepatology journals were selected on the basis of the 2020 Web of Science InCite Journal Citation Report impact factor rankings. Using the online archives on each journal's website, we reviewed all original research manuscripts published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Gender of first and last authors was determined using a validated algorithm, genderize.io. We described female first and last authorship percentages by journal and by year of publication. Linear by linear association trend test was used to evaluate for gender trend over time, while logistic regression analysis was performed to identified predictors of female first and last authorship. Results: Overall, 7,853 first authors with 2,138 females (27.2%) and 8,034 last authors with 1,156 females (14.4%) were included in final analysis. The proportion of female first authors in the selected journals combined increased from 20.7% (383/1852) in 2000 to 32.8% (370/1128) in 2020 with a statistically nonsignificant time trend (P value for trend = 0.054). Similarly, the proportion of female senior authors increased from 9.8% (182/1852) in 2000 to 17.5% (222/1271) in 2020 (P value for trend = 0.058). On multivariable analysis, journal, year of publication, and author’s continent remained significantly predictive of female first and last authorship. Conclusion: Overall, gender disparities persist within gastroenteroly and hepatology original publications, and the rate of improvement may be slowing. Today, the challenges facing women in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology are yet to be overcome.

S1521 Sex, Race, and Geographic Disparities Are Prevalent Among Authors and Patients in Prospective Studies Published in Major U.S. Gastroenterology Journals Over the Past Decade

Introduction: Our team investigated geographic and sex representation among authors in addition to sex and racial representation among patients in prospective cohort and randomized-controlled trials published in the major United States-based (US) gastroenterology and hepatology journals from 2010-2021. Methods: Our librarians retrieved articles published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG), Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Hepatology, and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GIE) from 1/1/2010 through 12/31/2021 through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. We randomly selected 2,749 articles and excluded all retrospective studies, meta-analyses, cross-sectional studies, translational work, and case series (Figure 1, Table 1). We then excluded 707 RCTs and PCs that were missing patient demographic data (eg, sex, race, etc). Categorical variables were compared using chi-square analysis while t-testing was used for numerical variables. All analysis was done using R. Results: We analyzed 244 RCTs and PCs and found US and Canada-based institutions represented 192/244 of lead authors (78.7%, P < 0.01), while the South comprised 71/192 (38.6%, P = 0.22) of the US-based authors. There were no papers from Africa or South America, and just 12 combined (4.9%) from East or South Asia, and North America apart from the US/Canada. Male lead authors (166/244; 68%) comprised the majority in both RCTs (2.8:1, P = 0.03) and PCs (1.5:1, P = 0.03), and in multi-center studies (3:1, P = 0.02) and single center studies (1.3:1, P = 0.02). Lead authorship was not significantly associated with journal editorial board membership. There were 1,401,292 patients, including 885,255 women (63.2%) and 308,010 non-White (21.9%) patients. The mean number of female to male patients was equivalent in 3 of the 5 journals and just above 2:1 in the other 2 journals (AJG, Gastroenterology). The ratio of White patients was significantly higher than that of non-White patients across all 5 journals (4.7:1 in AJG, 3.9:1 in Gastroenterology, 3.1:1 in GIE, 2.2:1 in Hepatology, and 1.6:1 in CGH; P = 0.04) for RCTs and PCs, whether single-center (2.5:1) or multi-center (5.4:1). Conclusion: There are geographic and sex-based disparities among lead authors, and race-based disparities among patients, particularly in multi-center studies and RCTs, which tend to be the most prestigious in clinical research. Further investigation and effort is needed to help address underrepresentation in these areas.Figure 1.: Flow Chart for Article Selection. Table 1. - Baseline Characteristics for Lead Authors and Study Types Variable Number (Percent); n=244 Journal American Journal of Gastroenterology 38 (15.6) Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 72 (29.5) Gastroenterology 69 (28.3) Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 23 (9.4) Hepatology 42 (17.2) Study Type Prospective Cohort 104 (42.6) Randomized-Controlled Trial 140 (57.4) Number of Sites Single-Center 95 (38.9) Multi-Center 149 (61.1) US Geographic Region Midwest 43 (23.4) Northeast 41 (22.3) South 71 (38.6) West 29 (15.8) World Geographic Region East and South Asia 7 (2.9) Europe 30 (12.3) Middle East 3 (1.2) North America (NOT US/Canada) 2 (0.8) Oceania 10 (4.1) US/Canada 192 (78.7) Lead Author Sex Female 78 (32) Male 166 (68) Lead Author on Editorial Board? No 215 (90.3) Yes 23 (9.7) Article's Main Focus Endoscopic Technique 28 (15.1) Liver Disease 101 (51) Pancreatico-Biliary or Gallbladder Disease 20 (10.8) Inflammatory Bowel Disease 24 (13) GI-Based Cancer 24 (13.3) Motility 11 (6.2) Functional GI Disease 27 (14.6) Other GI Issue Not Otherwise Specified 37 (19.2)

S1525 The File Drawer Effect in the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Literature

Introduction: The File Drawer Effect, or the tendency for studies with statistically significant results to be published and those with unequivocal or negative findings to remain unpublished or less known, can have a significant impact on the scientific literature available in a field. We sought to examine the proportion of studies with statistically significant results published in the gastroenterology and hepatology literature. Methods: We reviewed all original articles published in 2012 and 2017 in 4 national gastroenterology and hepatology journals (Gut, Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, Hepatology, and Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology). Our primary study outcome was the proportion of studies with a statistically significant finding. The number of times the study was cited according to Google Scholar was recorded and used as a measure of a study’s impact. The type of study (clinical or basic) was also recorded. Results: In total, 1,414 articles were reviewed and 3 were excluded due to unclear study results. Of the studies included, 97.31% (1,373) had at least one positive study result and 2.69% (28) had all negative study results. The proportion of articles with positive findings in 2012 (96.9%) was lower, though not significantly, from the proportion of articles with positive findings in 2017 (97.8%) (P < .38). The proportion of clinical science articles with positive findings (99.3%) was significantly greater than the proportion of basic research articles with positive findings (95.9%) (P < .01). The difference between the median number of times a study was cited and whether the study had a positive or negative result was not found to be statistically significant (P = .26). Conclusion: An overwhelming majority of studies published in the selected journals were found to be positive, and this proportion increased slightly between 2012 and 2017. While a study’s impact did not significantly differ between those with statistically significant and insignificant results, this could not be adequately examined due to the low sample size of negative studies (only 28) and subsequent lack of statistical power. The low representation of studies without statistically significant results, especially in clinical research, highlights a possible publication bias that is prevalent across the specialty’s literature. This bias can potentially drive poor clinical practice, and steps should be considered to further study this effect.

S1304 Female Representation in the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Literature

Introduction: Despite making up greater than 50% of medical students, women continue to be underrepresented in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. According to a 2017 survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges, only 17% of attending gastroenterologists were women. This underrepresentation is present in both the clinical and research environments. We conducted a literature review to determine trends in female author representation in the gastroenterology and hepatology literature. Methods: We reviewed all original articles published during 2012 and 2017 in four national gastroenterology and hepatology journals (Gut, Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, Hepatology, and Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology). The sex of the authors were recorded. Results: In total over the two years, 1,414 articles were reviewed. Author sex could not be determined for 8 first authors, 9 supplemental authors, and 6 senior authors. Of the studies for which sex of the first author could be determined, 39.5% (556) had a female first author and 60.5% (850) had a male first author. 87% (1,227) of studies had at least one female supplemental author, while 12.7% (178) had only male supplemental authors. 21.5% (302) of studies had a female senior author and 78.6% (1,106) had a male senior author. The increase in percentage of female authors from 2012 to 2017 was significant for articles with at least one female supplemental author (83.1% to 91.8%, p=0.001) and for articles with female senior authors (18.8% to 24.3%, p=0.016). There was a statistically insignificant increase in percentage of female first authors (38.0% to 41.3%, p=.231). Conclusion: Male first and senior authors outnumbered female authors in the examined literature, though the difference decreased in the examined years. The higher percentage of female first authors compared to senior authors is likely related to the near equal representation of females in student and trainee roles, which the first author is more likely to be. The lower proportion of female senior authors may be attributed to the limited female representation in research faculty positions. As women continue to gain representation in senior roles, further research may measure how female authorship continues to change over time.

Seeing Is Believing: The Effect of Graphical Abstracts on Citations and Social Media Exposure in Gastroenterology & Hepatology Journals.

Graphical abstracts (GAs) have recently been included as an essential element in various journals, including those in the field of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. However, there has been no study on the effect of GAs on the impact factor (IF) of journals, and the citation index or social media exposure of individual articles. We investigated the presence of GAs, total citations and social media exposure of full-length original articles in the top ten journals of gastroenterology and hepatology for three years (2019-2021). Citations and social media exposure were evaluated with the Web of Science citation index, Altmetric Attention score, Dimension recorded citation count, and PlumX index. A total of 4,205 articles from ten journals were evaluated for three years. First, journals that have adopted GAs demonstrated significantly higher IF increases for the past three years than those of journals without GAs. The longer GAs have been utilized in a journal, the higher IFs the journal had. Secondly, individual articles with GAs had significantly higher Web of Science citation counts (median 14 vs. 12), more social media exposure (median 23 vs. 5) and more Altmetric.com tweet counts (median 15 vs. 7) than those of articles without GAs. In multiple regression analysis, the inclusion of GAs was particularly effective in increasing the number of Web of Science citations (β = 14.1, SE = 1.9, P < 0.001) and social media exposure (β = 13.3, SE = 6.1, P = 0.030) after adjusting for journal IFs and topics. GAs are effective in increasing IFs of journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, as well as increasing citations and social media exposure of individual articles.

S3293 Women Authorship in Gastroenterology Sustained During Early COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction: Prior data indicate that within procedural specialties, women may be less likely to be first and senior authors of manuscripts during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for studies pertaining to the pandemic. Women are more likely faced with challenges of balancing work and other duties such as household responsibilities and childcare, especially for those who are mothers. The purpose of this study was to determine the gender distribution of authorship of manuscripts in high-impact gastroenterology and hepatology journals during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Manuscripts published between March 1, 2019 to January 1, 2020 and March 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021 in 16 high-impact gastroenterology and hepatology journals were identified using bibliometric data. Genders of first authors and senior authors were determined by matching first names with a predicted gender using a validated multinational database (Genderize.io). Number of women and men first and senior authors, and whether the manuscript was related to COVID-19 were recorded. Comparisons between female first and senior authorship of manuscripts from 2019 and 2020 were analyzed using Fisher exact testing. Results: In 2019, women were first authors of 777 (27.4%) manuscripts and senior authors of 546 (18.4%) manuscripts. In 2020, women were first authors of 999 (28.5%) manuscripts and senior authors of 646 (17.7%) manuscripts. There were no statistically significant differences of women first or senior authorship from 2019 to 2020. During the pandemic, women were first authors of 902 (28.9%) non-COVID-19 related manuscripts and 97 (25.7%) COVID-19 related manuscripts. Women were senior authors of 586 (18.0%) non-COVID-19 related manuscripts and 60 (15.6%) COVID-19 related manuscripts. There were no statistically significant differences of women authorship between non-COVID and COVID related manuscripts. Conclusion: The frequency and proportion of women first and senior authorship in 2020 was comparable to that in 2019. Women maintained scientific productivity in gastroenterology regarding publications in high-impact gastroenterology journals, despite facing increased challenges during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic.Figure 1.: Trends in first and senior authorship of manuscripts published in high-impact gastroenterology and hepatology journals.Table 1.: Gender characteristics of first and senior authors of manuscripts published in high-impact gastroenterology and hepatology journals in 2019 and 2020.

Higher Author Fees in Gastroenterology Journals Are Not Associated with Faster Processing Times or Higher Impact.

Publications are an important component of academic careers. We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere. This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals' Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times. We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p = 0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p < 0.001), and SJR (1.82 vs 0.83, p < 0.001) for the US/UK journals were higher than those for non-US/UK journals. We also found that 11/51 (21.6%) of US/UK journals and 15/46 (32.6%) of non-US/UK journals had mandatory processing and publication fees. These tended to be significantly larger in the US/UK group than in the non-US/UK group (USD 2380 vs USD 1470, p = 0.04). Publication-related fees may preclude authors from smaller or socioeconomically disadvantaged institutions and countries from publishing and disseminating their work.

How to Promote Career Advancement and Gender Equity for Women in Gastroenterology: A Multifaceted Approach

How to Promote Career Advancement and Gender Equity for Women in Gastroenterology: A Multifaceted Approach

Equal Opportunity: Women Representation on Editorial Boards and Authorship of Editorials in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals.

The proportion of women editorial board members and authors of editorials in major gastroenterology journals is not known. We determined the sex of editorial board members (n = 2,282) and authors of editorials (n = 1,705) across 6 journals from 1985 to 2020 at 5-year intervals. The proportion of women editorial board members increased from 2.9% in 1985 to 19.8% in 2020 (P < 0.0001) and women authors of editorials increased from 0% in 1985 to 22.2% in 2020 (P < 0.0001). The proportion of women represented over time has improved, but opportunities likely exist to improve further.

1160 Female Authors Contributed to Less Than 20 Percent of the 100 Most Cited Articles in Gastroenterology and Hepatology - Will This Change?

INTRODUCTION: The number of citations that an article has received can reflect its importance in a specialty. The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of top-cited articles published in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals in the citation database-Scopus. The number of citations an article receives after its publication reflects its impact in the scientific community. The aim of this study was to identify and characterize the 100 top-cited articles published in gastroenterology journals over the past five decades. METHODS: The top-cited original research articles published in gastroenterology journals were identified using the database of Scopus 1970-2019. The 100 top-cited articles were selected and analyzed with regard to the number of citations, year of publication, publishing journal, authorship, Sex of the authors, country of origin, type of article, gastroenterology sub-specialty. Meta-analysis and Review articles were excluded. RESULTS: The 100 top-cited articles were published in eight gastroenterology journals, led by Gastroenterology (n = 48) and followed by the Hepatology (n = 27). These articles were published between 1970 and 2019 with a mean of 1324.31 citations per article (range, 879–4301). Forty-Eight articles were published between 2001-2010 alone. Of the total 45% originated from the United States followed by France with 10%. The most common sub-specialties of study were Hepatology (n = 52) and Colon (n = 31). 87% of first authors were male and 90% of last authors were male. 60% of all articles were clinical research. CONCLUSION: Our study presents the characteristic of the 100 top-cited articles published in gastroenterology journals. Close to half of the original articles were contributed from the USA. Women in gastroenterology contributed to less than 20% to the most cited as top authors.

Reporting guideline and clinical trial registration requirements in gastroenterology and hepatology journals.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the current recommendations and requirements of gastroenterology and hepatology journals concerning reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Current research on the topic is sparse and in need of further research in both clinical trial registration and guideline adherence. The authors performed a review of journal protocols and 'Instructions for Authors' regarding guideline adherence and trial registration requirements within 30 gastroenterology and hepatology journals. We searched the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports to determine if each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of 17 guidelines and clinical trial registration. A majority (23/30; 76.7%) of the journals either required or recommended reporting guideline usage, whereas the remainder (7/30; 23.3%) had no such policy. In addition, 14 (14/30; 46.7%) require or recommend trial registration. Journals with a higher impact factor were associated with greater reporting guideline adherence (rpb = 0.43, P < 0.05). There was not a significant relationship between journal impact factor and trial registration requirements (rpb = 0.16, P > 0.05). Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials was the most often required guideline (9/30; 30%), whereas Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were tied for second most often required (6/30 each; 20% each). Clinical trial registration was most common via ClinicalTrials.gov (9/30; 30%). A majority of gastroenterology or hepatology journals either require or recommend reporting guideline usage, but just less than one-half of the journals did the same for trial registration.

Current Practices of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Registration in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the current recommendations or requirements of multiple gastroenterology and hepatology journals concerning reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Methods: We performed a review of journal protocols and “Instructions for Authors” regarding guideline adherence and trial registration requirements for 30 gastroenterology and hepatology journals. We performed a search of the journal-indexing database, the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports, to determine if each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of each of the following guidelines: EQUATOR Network, ICMJE, CONSORT, MOOSE, QUOROM, PRISMA, STARD, STROBE, ARRIVE, CARE, CHEERS, SRQR, SQUIRE, SPIRIT, COREQ, TRIPOD, and PRISMA-P. We also checked whether each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of clinical trial registration. All authors were blinded to each other until completion of the data extraction and validation was complete. Microsoft Excel was used for descriptive analysis. STATA 13.1 was used to compute point-biserial correlations. Results: A majority (76.7%) of the journals either required or recommended reporting guideline usage, whereas the remainder (23.3%) had no such policy. Additionally, just under half of the journals (46.7%) did not require or recommend trial registration. Higher impact factor journals were associated with greater adherence to reporting guidelines (rpb =.43, p < .05). There was not a significant relationship between journal impact factor and trial registration requirements (rpb =.16, p > .05). CONSORT was the most often required guideline (9/30), followed by ARRIVE and PRISMA (6/30 each).Clinical trial registration was most common via ClinicalTrials.gov (9/30), any trial registration (8/30), and the World Health Organization (6/30). Conclusion: In gastroenterology and hepatology journals, a majority either requires or recommends reporting guideline usage, but just under one half of the journals did so for trial registration.

Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review.

To appraise the current reporting methodological quality of meta-analyses in five leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals, and to identify the variables associated with the reporting quality. We systematically searched the literature of meta-analyses in Gastroenterology, Gut, Hepatology, Journal of Hepatology (J HEPATOL) and American Journal of Gastroenterology (AM J GASTROENTEROL) from 2006 to 2008 and from 2012 to 2014. Characteristics were extracted based on the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR tool. Country, number of patients, funding source were also revealed and descriptively reported. A total of 127 meta-analyses were enrolled in this study and were compared among journals, study years, and other characters. Compliances with the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR checklist were 20.8 ± 4.2 out of a maximum of 27 and 7.6 ± 2.4 out of a maximum of 11, respectively. Some domains were poorly reported including describing a protocol and/or registration (item 5, 0.0%), describing methods, and giving results of additional analyses (item 16, 45.7% and item 23, 48.0%) for PRISMA and duplicating study selection and data extraction (item 2, 53.5%), and providing a list of included and excluded studies (item 5, 14.2%) for AMSTAR. Publication in recent years showed a significantly better methodological quality than those published in previous years. This study shows that methodological reporting quality of MAs in the major gastroenterology and hepatology journals has improved in recent years after the publication of the developed PRISMA statement, and it can be further improved.

Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials of gastroenterology and hepatology

Objectives. The need for trial registration as well as the benefits it has brought for the transparency of medical research has been recognized for years. Trial registration has turned from an exception to a mandatory guideline in recent years. The present study aimed to examine the characteristics of registered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a sample of recently published gastroenterology RCTs, and to assess the consistency of registered and published primary outcome (PO) in RCTs. Methods. Articles published in the top five “general and internal journals” and top five “gastroenterology and hepatology journals” categories between 2009 and 2012 were searched in PubMed. Basic characteristics and the registration information were identified and extracted from the included RCTs. PO consistency analysis was conducted to compare between the registered and published format. Results. A total of 305 RCTs were included; among them 252 could be identified with a registration number. Nearly half of these RCTs were funded solely by industry (141/305, 46.3%). ClinicalTrials.gov was the most popular registry for these RCTs (214/252, 84.9%). A total of 155 RCTs were included in the PO consistency analysis. Among them, 22 (14.2%) RCTs had discrepancies between POs registered in the trial registry compared to the published article. Conclusions. Based on the results of the present study, selective outcome reporting of gastroenterology RCTs published in leading medical journals has been much improved over the past years. However, there might be a sampling bias to say that consistency of registered and published POs of gastroenterology RCTs has been better than before.

The More Publication, the Higher Impact Factor: Citation Analysis of Top Nine Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals

BackgroundThe impact factor (IF), as the most important criterion for journal’s quality measurement, is affected by the self-citation and number of publications in each journal.ObjectivesTo find out the relationship between the number of publications and self-citations in a journal, and their correlations with IF.Materials and MethodsSelf-citations and impact factors of nine top gastroenterology and hepatology journals were assessed during the seven recent years (2005-2011) through Journal Citation Reports (JCR, ISI Thomson Reuters).ResultsAlthough impact factors of all journals increased during the study, five out of nine journals increased the number of publications from 2005 to 2011. There was an increase in self-citation only in the journal of HEPATOLOGY (499 in 2005 vs. 707 in 2011). Impact factors of journals (6.5 ± 3.5) were positively correlated with total number of publications (248.6 ± 91.7) (R: 0.688, P < 0.001). Besides, the self-citation rate (238.73 ± 195.317) was highly correlated with total number of publications in each journal (248.6 ± 91.7) (R: 0.861, P < 0.001). On the other hand, impact factor without self-citation (6.08 ± 3.3) had a correlation (R: 0.672, P < 0.001) with the number of published items (248.6 ± 91.7).ConclusionsThe number of articles and self-citation have definite effects on IF of a journal and because IF is the most prominent criterion for journal’s quality measurement, it would be a good idea to consider factors affecting on IF such as self-citation.