Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review
  1. Jaykaran Charan1,
  2. Mayur Chaudhari2,
  3. Ryan Jackson3,
  4. Rahul Mhaskar4,
  5. Tea Reljic4,
  6. Ambuj Kumar4
  1. 1Department of Pharmacology, GMERS Medical College, Patan, Gujarat, India
  2. 2Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, Gujarat, India
  3. 3Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Morsani College of Medicine, USF, Tampa, Florida, USA
  4. 4Division of EBM, Morsani College of Medicine, Internal Medicine, Tampa, Florida, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ambuj Kumar; akumar1{at}


Objectives Published negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals.

Design A systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science focus and impact factor >1 between 2011 and 2013. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. The results were considered positive if the primary outcome was statistically significant and negative otherwise. When the primary outcome was not specified, we used data on the first outcome reported in the history followed by the results section. Differences in various methodological quality domains between positive versus negative studies were assessed by Fisher's exact test.

Results Seven journals with 259 comparative studies were included in this SR. 24% (63/259) were RCTs, 24% (63/259) cohort studies, and 49% (128/259) case–control studies. 53% (137/259) of studies explicitly reported the primary outcome. Five studies did not report sufficient data to enable us to determine if results were positive or negative. Statistical significance was determined by p value in 78.3% (199/254), CI in 2.8% (7/254), both p value and CI in 11.8% (30/254), and only descriptive in 6.3% (16/254) of studies. The overall methodological quality was poor and no statistically significant differences between reporting of methodological quality were detected between studies with positive versus negative findings.

Conclusions There was no difference in the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies. However, the uneven reporting of positive versus negative studies (72% vs 28%) indicates a publication bias in Indian medical journals with an impact factor of >1.

  • Methodological quality
  • Publication bias
  • Clinical trial

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

Statistics from

Supplementary materials

Related Data

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.