Indexed in Journament

journal of clinical epidemiology

ISSN 1878-5921· EN

Journal Website Certificate of Indexing
Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
39.0/100
Journament Score
#9,010
Journament Rank
75
Articles Indexed

About This Journal

Short Name j clin epidemiol
Abbreviated Name journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN 1878-5921
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-clinical-epidemiology

Indexings

scopus ncbi ulakbim sci

Tools & Certificate of Indexing

Certificate of Indexing
Quality Badge Widget - Embed on Your Website

Display your journal's verified indexing scores on your website with our self-contained widget.

One-Line JavaScript Embed:
Advantages: Single-line script, seamless DOM integration, clickable badges linking to full journal profile.
Standard iFrame Embed Code:
Widget Preview:

Publications Per Year

Articles (75)

2009
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration
Liberati A;Altman DG;Tetzlaff J;Mulrow C;Gøtzsche PC;Ioannidis JP;Clarke M;Devereaux PJ;Kleijnen J;Moher D;;
Vol. 62 , No. 10 , pp. -
520 views Abstract
2019
Reporting of randomised factorial trials was frequently inadequate.
Kahan, Brennan C;Tsui, Michael;Jairath, Vipul;Scott, Anna Mae;Altman, Douglas G;Beller, Elaine;Elbourne, Diana;
481 views DOI Abstract
2010
better outcome after pediatric resuscitation is still a dilemma
;Sahu Sandeep;Kishore Kamal;Lata Indu
Vol. 3 , No. 3 , pp. 243-250
430 views Abstract
2016
abdominal compartment syndrome in trauma patients: new insights for predicting outcomes
;Aisha W Shaheen;Marie L Crandall;Norman G Nicolson;Eduardo Smith-Singares;Gary J Merlotti;Yash Jalundhwala;Nabil M Issa
Vol. 9 , No. 2 , pp. 53-57
424 views DOI Abstract
2019
No clear choice between NOS and AXIS to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality-of-life and breast cancer.
Moskalewicz, Alexandra;Oremus, Mark;
417 views DOI Abstract
2014
is there a correlation of sonographic measurements of true vocal cords with gender or body mass indices in normal healthy volunteers?
;Leah Bright;Michael Secko;Ninfa Mehta;Lorenzo Paladino;Richard Sinert
Vol. 7 , No. 2 , pp. 112-115
417 views DOI Abstract
2019
Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.
Saric, Lenko;Dosenovic, Svjetlana;Saldanha, Ian J;Kadic, Antonia Jelicic;Puljak, Livia;
409 views DOI Abstract
2011
determinants of mortality in trauma patients following massive blood transfusion
;Rangarajan Kanchana;Subramanian Arulselvi;Pandey Ravindra
Vol. 4 , No. 1 , pp. 58-63
408 views Abstract
2019
The moral and legal status of Health Care Workers in Cluster Randomized Trials: A response to Weijer and Taljaard.
van der Graaf, Rieke;van Thiel, Ghislaine;Hoop, Esther Oomen-de;Moons, Karel G M;Grobbee, Diederick E;van Delden, Johannes J M;
400 views DOI Abstract
2011
GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Guyatt GH;Oxman AD;Schünemann HJ;Tugwell P;Knottnerus A;;
Vol. 64 , No. 4 , pp. -
388 views Abstract
2020
Patient-focused outcomes are infrequently reported in pediatric health information technology trials: a systematic review
Neame, M.
Vol. 119 , pp. 117-125
133 views DOI
2020
Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study
Nussbaumer-Streit, B.
Vol. 118 , pp. 42-54
229 views DOI
2020
A validation study revealed differences in design and performance of MEDLINE search filters for qualitative research
Wagner, M.
Vol. 120 , pp. 17-24
226 views DOI
2020
Frequent inappropriate use of unweighted summary statistics in systematic reviews of pathogen genotypes or genogroups
Tran, L.
Vol. 119 , pp. 26-35
204 views DOI
2020
Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study
Hacke, C.
Vol. 119 , pp. 47-56
217 views DOI
2020
The reporting of race and/or ethnicity in the medical literature: a retrospective bibliometric analysis confirmed room for improvement
Bokor-Billmann, T.
Vol. 119 , pp. 1-6
142 views DOI
2019
Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological study.
Munkholm, Klaus;Faurholt-Jepsen, Maria;Ioannidis, John P A;Hemkens, Lars G;
Vol. 119 , pp. 75-84
300 views DOI Abstract
2019
No clear choice between NOS and AXIS to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality-of-life and breast cancer.
Moskalewicz, Alexandra;Oremus, Mark;
417 views DOI Abstract
2019
Modeling missing binary outcome data while preserving transitivity assumption yielded more credible network meta-analysis results
Spineli, L.
Vol. 105 , pp. 19-26
190 views DOI
2019
GRADE guidelines 26: Informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions.
Santesso, Nancy;Glenton, Claire;Dahm, Philipp;Garner, Paul;Akl, Elie;Alper, Brian;Brignardello-Petersen, Romina;Carrasco-Labra, Alonso;De Beer, Hans;Hultcrantz, Monica;Kuijpers, Ton;Meerpohl, Joerg;Morgan, Rebecca;Mustafa, Reem;Skoetz, Nicole;Sultan, Shahnaz;Wiysonge, Charles;Guyatt, Gordon;Schünemann, Holger J;, ;
351 views DOI Abstract
39
Overall
Poor
31
15
30
40
36
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

39.0/100

Tier: Poor

The Journament Overall Quality Score is a comprehensive metric that evaluates academic journals across multiple dimensions including engagement, accessibility, diversity, innovation, and community impact.

This score helps researchers, institutions, and publishers understand the holistic quality and impact of a journal beyond traditional metrics.

Engagement Score

31.1/100

Measures user interactions, views, citations, and community involvement with this journal's content.

Higher engagement scores indicate that the journal's content is actively being read, cited, and discussed within the academic community.

Accessibility Score

15.0/100

Evaluates how easily researchers can access journal content, including open access availability, ISSN registration, and indexing.

This metric considers factors such as paywalls, open access policies, and availability across different academic databases and search engines.

Diversity Score

30.0/100

Assesses geographic and institutional diversity of authors, editorial board composition, and topic breadth.

A diverse journal publishes work from various geographic regions, institutions, and covers a broad range of topics within its field.

Innovation Score

40.0/100

Evaluates research novelty, interdisciplinary work, and emerging topics based on AI analysis of article abstracts.

This score reflects how much the journal publishes cutting-edge research, explores new methodologies, and bridges different academic disciplines.

Community Impact Score

36.0/100

Measures scholarly contribution and real-world applications of published research.

This metric evaluates how the journal's research translates into practical applications, policy changes, and benefits to society beyond academia.

Timeliness Score

50.0/100

Evaluates recent publication activity, publication frequency, and currency of research topics.

Higher scores indicate consistent publishing schedules and timely coverage of current research trends.

Ethics & Transparency Score

0.0/100

Research Integrity (10% weight)

Assesses COPE standards compliance, ethical considerations in research, transparency in methodologies, and reproducibility practices.

This metric ensures the journal maintains high ethical standards and promotes transparent, trustworthy research.

Content Quality Score

0.0/100

Academic Rigor (20% weight) + Methodology Quality (12%)

Evaluates research methodology soundness, statistical rigor, theoretical framework strength, appropriateness of research methods, data quality, and clarity & readability.

This comprehensive metric ensures published research meets the highest academic standards.

Editorial Diversity Score

0.0/100

Author Diversity + Interdisciplinary Value (8%)

Measures geographic diversity of authors, institutional variety, editorial board composition, and cross-disciplinary connections.

Diverse editorial teams bring varied perspectives and reduce bias in academic publishing.

Publication Regularity Score

0.0/100

Assesses consistency of publication schedule, frequency stability, and predictable output patterns.

Regular publication schedules indicate reliable journal operations and consistent workflow management.

Geographic Reach Score

0.0/100

Evaluates international author representation, global readership distribution, and cross-border research collaboration.

Wide geographic reach indicates global impact and international recognition of the journal's research.