Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Aims & Scope

The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions.

All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective.

Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice.

Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.

View Aims & Scope

---

Metrics & Ranking

Impact Factor

Year	Value
2025	2.1
2024	2.10

Journal Rank

Year	Value
2024	6789

Journal Citation Indicator

Year	Value
2024	1056

SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

Year	Value
2024	0.799

Quartile

Year	Value
2024	Q2

h-index

Year	Value
2024	91

---

---

Abstracting & Indexing

Journal is indexed in leading academic databases, ensuring global visibility and accessibility of our peer-reviewed research.

• Scopus
• Google Scholar
• Web of Science
• Medline
• Embase

---

Subjects & Keywords

Journal’s research areas, covering key disciplines and specialized sub-topics in Medicine, designed to support cutting-edge academic discovery.

---

Most Cited Articles

The Most Cited Articles section features the journal's most impactful research, based on citation counts. These articles have been referenced frequently by other researchers, indicating their significant contribution to their respective fields.

• Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline

  Citation: 2165

  Authors: Valmi D., Wilaiporn

• Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice

  Citation: 1682

  Authors: Gillian A., Susanna, Paula R.

• Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research

  Citation: 1218

  Authors: Susan, Carla R., Neil A., Patricia D., Greta G.

• Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the <scp>Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool</scp> (<scp>MMAT</scp>)

  Citation: 693

  Authors: Quan Nha, Araceli, Pierre

• Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool

  Citation: 553

  Authors: Reema, Rebecca, Peter, Gerry

• Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta‐analysis

  Citation: 534

  Authors: John P. A.

• Minimal clinically important difference for change in 6‐minute walk test distance of adults with pathology: a systematic review

  Citation: 530

  Authors: Richard W., Rebecca

• Impact of patient‐reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review

  Citation: 503

  Authors: Susan, Kirstie, Ray

• The association between continuity of care and outcomes: a systematic and critical review

  Citation: 448

  Authors: Carl, Natalie, Alison, Alan J.

• Brief assessment of adult cancer patients' perceived needs: development and validation of the 34‐item Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS‐SF34)

  Citation: 419

  Authors: Allison, Afaf, Christophe

---