title: Are our publications failing the inspection?: a review of the publications in rectal cancer surgery between 2002 and 2012.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Quality of publications is considered a subjective measurement, and more weight is placed on prospective studies, especially randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This study describes the type of publications and evaluates the quality of randomized clinical trials and review articles using an objective measurement.
  
  
  METHODS
  Medline (PubMed) is the data source for this work.
  
  
  METHODS
  We used the terms "rectal neoplasms/surgery" and the filters "10 years," "humans," and "English."
  
  
  METHODS
  We measured compliance with checklist items. Randomized clinical trials were reviewed using the Consolidates Standards of Reporting Trials statement; systematic reviews/meta-analyses were reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 3603 articles were identified: 20.8% were case report/series, 20.5% were retrospective cohorts, 14.0% were reviews or meta-analyses, 16.4% were prospective cohorts, 14.0% were other types of articles (comments, letters, or editorials), 5.5% were clinical trials (phase I/II), 4.2% were randomized clinical trials, and 4.4% were cross-sectional studies. We reviewed 108 randomized clinical trials; the maximum score possible was 74.0, the average score was 44.6 (range, 20.0-64.0), 4 (3.7%) were graded as "excellent," 21 (19.4%) were "good," 44 (40.7%) were "deficient," and 39 (36.1%) were graded as "fail." The predictors of higher scores for randomized clinical trials were year of publication after 2007 (p = 0.00), higher impact factor (p = 0.03), and declared funding (p = 0.01). Twenty-nine meta-analyses were reviewed; the average score was 19.64 (range, 12.0-25.0); 5 articles (17.2%) were graded as "excellent," 12 (41.4%) were "good," 10 (34.5%) were "deficient," and 2 (6.9%) were "fail."
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Only 1 electronic database was used, so we lacked a validated score. In addition, the search terms did not include "colorectal."
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A total of 20.8% of the articles published were case reports and 25.0% of the articles were prospective or clinical trials. Although randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews provide the highest level of evidence, publications with missing data limit replication of the study and affect the generalizability of results to other populations. To improve the quality of our publications, authors, reviewers, and journal editors should consider the endorsement of standardize checklists.
authors.affiliation: Division of Colon and Rectum Surgery, Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois.
authors.forename: Maria C Mora
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Pinzon
authors.forename: Dana M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Hayden
authors.forename: Darlene
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Ariel
authors.forename: Kimberly A
authors.initials: KA
authors.lastname: Bartosiak
authors.forename: Michael V
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Chiodo
authors.forename: Konstantine
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kosmidis
authors.forename: Ann
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Evans
authors.forename: Theodore J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: Saclarides
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D006801:Humans; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D011643:Publishing / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D012107:Research Design