Review of JVIR and CVIR Questions Quality of Literature

According to the investigators, they reviewed all articles reporting the outcomes from therapies in 12 consecutive months of JVIR (August 2007 to July 2008) and CVIR (July/August 2007 to May/June 2008). The included studies were evaluated by means of a score sheet adapted from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. The score sheet was composed of 22 categories, with each given a score of 0 to 2. These scores were summed (maximum score, 44), and the comparative results were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum and χ2 tests.

The investigators reviewed 129 articles from JVIR and 86 articles from CVIR. JVIR's mean score was 23.3 ± 4.9, which was significantly higher than CVIR's mean score of 19.8 ± 5.7 (P < .0001). Prospective studies comprised 38% (49 of 129) of JVIR's articles and 35% (31 of 86) of CVIR's studies (P = .9076). The mean sample sizes were larger for JVIR than for CVIR (130.8 and 66.3, respectively) (P = .0173). Both journals primarily published case series (112/129 [86.8%] for JVIR and 76/86 [88%] for CVIR). Only six of the129 articles (4.6%) in JVIR and seven of the 87 (8.1%) in CVIR were randomized studies. Key weaknesses in reporting include lack of randomization, blinding of outcome assessment, sample size analysis, and proper reporting of outcomes, the investigators reported.