Résumé :
|
[BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS BO2l2R0x. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Context To compare the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in peer-reviewed and "throwaway" journals. Methods We reviewed articles that focused on the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition published between January 1 and December 31,1998, in the 5 leading peer-reviewed general medical journals and high-circulation throwaway journals. Reviewers independently assessed the methodologic and reporting quality, and evaluated each article's presentation and readability. Clinical relevance was evaluated independently by 6 physicians. Results Of the 394 articles in our sample, 16 (4.1%) were peer-reviewed systematic reviews, 135 (34.3%) were peer-reviewed nonsystematic reviews, and 243 (61.7%) were nonsystematic reviews published in throwaway journals. The mean (SD) quality scores were highest for peer-reviewed articles (0.94 [0.09] for systematic reviews and 0.30 [0.19] for nonsystematic reviews) compared with throwaway journal articles (0.23 [0.03], F2.391=280.8, P<. throwaway journal articles used more tables figures photographs color and larger font sizes compared with peer-reviewed articles. readability scores were often in the college or higher range for journals vs p="01)." article titles judged less relevant to clinical practice than conclusions although lower methodologic reporting quality review published have characteristics that appeal physician readers.>
|