Impact of Consensus Papers versus Randomized Trials in Critical Care Nephrology

Abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Reports of consensus conferences are usually valued less than reports of clinical trials even when rigorous methodology is used. However, limited data are available comparing the impact of these 2 methods of shaping clinical practice. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> Compare the publication impact of consensus conferences and clinical trials. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Consensus publications from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) from 2002 through 2017 were identified and classified by subject matter. Randomized trials were identified in the same publication year and subject in journals, starting with the highest impact factor. Both publication types were matched, and total citations were determined for each using Google Scholar. A secondary analysis compared total costs for each publication type. <b><i>Results and Conclusions:</i></b> Seventeen ADQI consensus conference reports and 17 randomized trials were identified. ADQI reports received a similar number of citations per paper (median, interquartile range) compared to randomized trials (132, 54–228; vs. 159, 60–340, <i>p</i> = ns). Similarly, 10 (58.8%) ADQI reports and 10 randomized trials were cited &#x3e;100 times. On average, ADQI reports appeared in journals with lower impact factors compared to clinical trials (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 25.4 ± 27.1; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). The median cost per citation (USD 2017) for ADQI reports was USD 606.01 compared to almost twice this figure, USD 1,182.59, for clinical trials on the same topics (<i>p</i> = 0.09). Despite being published in lower impact factor journals, consensus reports on topics in critical care nephrology, received similar citations to randomized controlled trials published the same year.