Methodological Errors in Clinical Studies Published by Medical Journals of Ex-Yugoslav Countries

Introduction: Certain methodological principles should be inexcusably followed when designing clinical or observational research to avoid bias and presentation of results that do not reflect the truth about the phenomenon that is the object of the study. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the methodological quality of clinical trials and observational studies published in medical journals from ex-Yugoslav countries indexed in Pubmed/MEDLINE. Methods: Clinical studies published in medical journals of ex-Yugoslav countries were retrieved from the Pubmed/MEDLINE database, and the sample for analysis was randomly chosen from the retrieved publications. The rate of the most common errors in the design of clinical/observational studies was established by a careful reading of the sampled publications and their checking against predefined criteria. Results: The studies published in two countries that are now member states of the European Union (Slovenia and Croatia) have significantly higher citation rates, impact factor, and methodological quality scores than studies from other ex-Yugoslav countries. While publications from Croatia show clear improvement trend throughout the last two decades, which is visible also in the last 10 years in Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, quality of clinical research published in journals from Serbia was stagnating in the same period. Conclusions: There are significant differences in methodological quality and scientometric characteristics of clinical research published in medical journals of ex-Yugoslav countries that could be mitigated by more intensive training of clinical researchers in statistics and research design, as well as by more rigorous editorial practices.