Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Hirsch index and truth survival in clinical research
Thierry Poynard1, Dominique Thabut, Mona Munteanu
1University Pierre et Marie Curie Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris Liver Center, Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. tpoynard@teaser.fr
Background:
Factors associated with the survival of truth of clinical conclusions in the medical literature are unknown. We hypothesized that publications with a first author having a higher Hirsch' index value (h-I), which quantifies and predicts an individual's scientific research output, should have a longer half-life.
Methods And Results:
474 original articles concerning cirrhosis or hepatitis published from 1945 to 1999 were selected. The survivals of the main conclusions were updated in 2009. The truth survival was assessed by time-dependent methods (Kaplan Meier method and Cox). A conclusion was considered to be true, obsolete or false when three or more observers out of the six stated it to be so. 284 out of 474 conclusions (60%) were still considered true, 90 (19%) were considered obsolete and 100 (21%) false. The median of the h-I was=24 (range 1-85). Authors with true conclusions had significantly higher h-I (median=28) than those with obsolete (h-I=19; P=0.002) or false conclusions (h-I=19; P=0.01). The factors associated (P<0.0001) with h-I were: scientific life (h-I=33 for>30 years vs. 16 for<30 years), -methodological quality score (h-I=36 for high vs. 20 for low scores), and -positive predictive value combining power, ratio of true to not-true relationships and bias (h-I=33 for high vs. 20 for low values). In multivariate analysis, the risk ratio of h-I was 1.003 (95%CI, 0.994-1.011), and was not significant (P=0.56). In a subgroup restricted to 111 articles with a negative conclusion, we observed a significant independent prognostic value of h-I (risk ratio=1.033; 95%CI, 1.008-1.059; P=0.009). Using an extrapolation of h-I at the time of article publication there was a significant and independent prognostic value of baseline h-I (risk ratio=0.027; P=0.0001).
Conclusions:
The present study failed to clearly demonstrate that the h-index of authors was a prognostic factor for truth survival. However the h-index was associated with true conclusions, methodological quality of trials and positive predictive values.
Related Concept Videos
Therapeutic Index
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Survival Curves
The Kaplan-Meier estimator is the most common method for constructing survival curves. This...
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...