{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009298393913778529, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.264550264550264, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical relevance in anesthesia journals

Purpose of review The purpose of this review is to present the latest knowledge and research on the definition and distribution of clinically relevant articles in anesthesia journals. It will also discuss the importance of the chosen methodology and outcome of articles. Recent findings In the last few years, more attention has been paid to evidence-based medicine in anesthesia. Several articles on the subject have focused on the need to base clinical decisions on sound research employing both methodological rigor and clinically relevant outcomes. The number of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature is increasing as well as the focus on diminishing the number of surrogate outcomes. It has been shown that the impact factor is not a valid measure of establishing the level of clinical relevance to a journal. Summary This review presents definitions of clinically relevant anesthesia articles. A clinically relevant article employs both methodological rigor and a clinically relevant outcome. The terms methodological rigor and clinical outcomes are fully discussed in the review as well as problems with journal impact factors.