Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study

The journal impact factor (IF) is often used as a surrogate marker for methodological quality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relation between the journal IF and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Surgical RCTs published in PubMed in 1999 and 2009 were identified. According to IF, RCTs were divided into groups of low (< 2), median (2-3) and high IF (> 3), as well as into top-10 vs all other journals. Methodological quality characteristics and factors concerning funding, ethical approval and statistical significance of outcomes were extracted and compared between the IF groups. Additionally, a multivariate regression was performed. The median IF was 2.2 (IQR 2.37). The percentage of 'low-risk of bias' RCTs was 13% for top-10 journals vs 4% for other journals in 1999 (P < 0.02), and 30 vs 12% in 2009 (P < 0.02). Similar results were observed for high vs low IF groups. The presence of sample-size calculation, adequate generation of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis were independently associated with publication in higher IF journals; as were multicentre trials and multiple authors. Publication of RCTs in high IF journals is associated with moderate improvement in methodological quality compared to RCTs published in lower IF journals. RCTs with adequate sample-size calculation, generation of allocation or intention-to-treat analysis were associated with publication in a high IF journal. On the other hand, reporting a statistically significant outcome and being industry funded were not independently associated with publication in a higher IF journal.