Evidence Reversal: An exploratory analysis of randomized controlled trials from the New England Journal of Medicine
2017
- 440Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage440
- Downloads270
- Abstract Views170
Article Description
BACKGROUND: Evidence Reversal (ER) is the phenomenon whereby new and stronger evidence contradicts previously established evidence.OBJECTIVES: To quantify evidence reversals and to determine characteristics associated with reversibility.METHODS: Original articles from the New England Journal of Medicine (2000 to 2016) were screened for three inclusion criteria: tested a clinical practice; Randomized Controlled Trial design; and tested an established clinical practice. The proportion of RCTs that represented ER was determined. Association of trial characteristics with reversal was explored using logistic regression in order to inform a potential framework of reversibility.RESULTS: In total, 611 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which 54% were evidence reversals. Based on variables associated with ER, a reversibility framework was proposed, comprised of eight trial characteristics.CONCLUSION: More than 50% of RCTs published in the NEJM that test established practices are evidence reversals. The characteristics of RCTs that are associated with reversal will inform future research to further understand reversibility.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know