American journal of ophthalmology · 2026
Null Studies in Ophthalmology Journals: A Large-scale Analysis of PubMed Indexed Research.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hecht Idan, Sella Ruti, Kanclerz Piotr, Sorin Vera, Tuuminen Raimo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Null studies, in which the primary outcome is not statistically significant, are essential for unbiased evidence-based medicine and help reveal selective dissemination of research. We estimated the prevalence of null studies and characterized differences between null and positive studies in ophthalmology journals.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of original studies published from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2025.
SUBJECTS: Original studies published in 90 PubMed-indexed journals listed in the Ophthalmology category of the 2025 Journal Citation Reports.
METHODS: Study characteristics were derived using rule-based processing, except classification of the main study result as null versus positive, which used a large language model pipeline (gpt-4.1) applied to abstracts. Large language model performance was evaluated against a prespecified manual validation set of 500 abstracts, achieving kappa 0.87 (prespecified threshold 0.75).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and differences in study characteristics between null and positive studies.
RESULTS: A total of 93,963 studies were included, of which 19,231 (20.5%) were null studies. The proportion of null studies declined from 25.6% in 2014 to 15.1% in 2025 (P < .001). Positive studies were more often funded than null studies (68.4% vs 58.0%; risk difference 95% CI 9.6-11.2; P < .001) and were more often prospective in design (17.5% vs 16.0%; risk difference 95% CI 0.9-2.0; P < .001), whereas randomized design was similarly common between groups (6.5% vs 6.5%, P = .867). Positive studies were also more often drug-focused (13.6% vs 11.8%), device-focused (9.3% vs 6.9%), or surgery-focused (13.4% vs 9.3%) (all P < .001). Null studies were published in journals with lower mean impact factor (2.59 ± 1.62 vs 2.73 ± 1.69; mean difference 95% CI 0.11-0.17; P < .001), and worse mean journal rank (40.11 ± 22.6 vs 37.80 ± 22.2; mean difference 95% CI -2.67 to -1.95; P < .001) compared to positive studies.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale analysis of ophthalmology journals, one in five studies had a null primary outcome. Overall, null studies became less common over time and were more often published in lower-impact, lower-ranked journals and were more likely to be unfunded. These findings suggest systematic differences in the characteristics and dissemination of null versus positive studies in ophthalmology.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of original studies published from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2025.
SUBJECTS: Original studies published in 90 PubMed-indexed journals listed in the Ophthalmology category of the 2025 Journal Citation Reports.
METHODS: Study characteristics were derived using rule-based processing, except classification of the main study result as null versus positive, which used a large language model pipeline (gpt-4.1) applied to abstracts. Large language model performance was evaluated against a prespecified manual validation set of 500 abstracts, achieving kappa 0.87 (prespecified threshold 0.75).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and differences in study characteristics between null and positive studies.
RESULTS: A total of 93,963 studies were included, of which 19,231 (20.5%) were null studies. The proportion of null studies declined from 25.6% in 2014 to 15.1% in 2025 (P < .001). Positive studies were more often funded than null studies (68.4% vs 58.0%; risk difference 95% CI 9.6-11.2; P < .001) and were more often prospective in design (17.5% vs 16.0%; risk difference 95% CI 0.9-2.0; P < .001), whereas randomized design was similarly common between groups (6.5% vs 6.5%, P = .867). Positive studies were also more often drug-focused (13.6% vs 11.8%), device-focused (9.3% vs 6.9%), or surgery-focused (13.4% vs 9.3%) (all P < .001). Null studies were published in journals with lower mean impact factor (2.59 ± 1.62 vs 2.73 ± 1.69; mean difference 95% CI 0.11-0.17; P < .001), and worse mean journal rank (40.11 ± 22.6 vs 37.80 ± 22.2; mean difference 95% CI -2.67 to -1.95; P < .001) compared to positive studies.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale analysis of ophthalmology journals, one in five studies had a null primary outcome. Overall, null studies became less common over time and were more often published in lower-impact, lower-ranked journals and were more likely to be unfunded. These findings suggest systematic differences in the characteristics and dissemination of null versus positive studies in ophthalmology.