Objective: Clinical articles are important for individualization of drug therapy.  Especially, meta-analysis is positioned at the highest evidence level.  Therefore, we assessed the Quality Score of Meta-Analysis (QSMA) which provides simple assessments of both the quality and the format of meta-analyses, by applying them to incretin-related drugs as a model.  Furthermore, we attempted to extract clinical data from the literature employing a certain minimum standard.
Method: We searched for meta-analyses of incretin-related drugs for diabetes in PubMed and the Cochrane Library, scoring the extracted articles for format using PRISMA statements, and for quality using QSMA.  Additionally, we classified these articles into two groups with a QSMA score of 70% as the basis, and verified the analysis sets (ITT, FAS, PP or APT) and sensitivity analysis.  Furthermore, we looked into those articles that scored 70% or higher to extract data that were deemed to have significant statistical differences.
Results: Scoring of the 66 articles studied yielded 69.9±19.4% (mean ± SD) for format and 62.1±17.8% for quality.  These two variables produced a regression line of y=0.777x+7.834.  Comparison of the two groups classified on the basis of a 70% score on QSMA yielded a significant difference in sensitivity analysis only (p<0.05).  Seven effects and five side effects were extracted from articles with a QSMA score of 70% or higher.
Conclusion: Although QSMA can provide simple assessment of quality and structure using eight items, analysis sets needs to be verified individually.  As the articles assessed provided statistically endorsed data, the clinical application of QSMA will be an issue in the future.

Objective: Exhaustive search is the basis for meta-analysis and evidence based medicine (EBM). The validity of searches can be confirmed by evaluating the core journals included in the search results. Core journals also exert significant influence because they serve as the hub of each discipline. However, the qualitative relationship between core journals and published articles has not been fully evaluated; therefore, core journals were selected for clinical articles on respiratory infectious diseases and were evaluated for their quality.Methods: We searched PubMed for clinical articles in three areas: drugs for respiratory infections, drug resistance, and vaccines. The core journals were selected based on Bradford’s Law. The quality of the selected articles was further assessed using the double-blind and randomized controlled trial (RCT) methods.Results: The Bradford curve that was created displayed a high R2 accuracy of 0.9971, 0.9981, and 0.9953 at the linear portion. Evaluation of the research quality of selected core journals revealed a statistically high quality in the field of respiratory infections and vaccines; however, no statistically significant difference was observed in the field of resistant bacteria.Conclusion: With exceptions in some areas, the quality of publications tended to be higher when core journals were selected based on Bradford’s Law. Different evaluation methods are required for fields unsuitable for randomization or blinding. In the future, it will be vital to consider evaluation methods for core journals according to the characteristics of the studies.