Dataset Information

Dental sciences related articles data published in a Basic Medical Sciences Journal from Iran.

ABSTRACT: This data aimed to audit the dental sciences related articles published in Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences (IJBMS) from 2007 to 2015 over a 9 year period performed using web-based search. The data were analyzed for topic of dental sciences, type of article, international collaborations, source of funding, number of authors and authorship trends. Out of the total 18 data related to dental sciences, original articles (12), review articles (4) and short communications (2) contribute the major share. Regarding the relationship with dental sciences, the maximum number of data were related to oral pathology and microbiology (16) followed by oral medicine and radiology (7) and periodontics (7). Among the data related to dental sciences, oral cancer (3) and gingival and periodontal diseases (3) followed by dental plaque and caries (2) and orthodontic tooth movement (2) form the major attraction of the contributors. The largest numbers of data related to dental sciences were received from Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad (4) and Tehran University of Medical Sciences,Tehran (2).The present data were compared with previous bibliometric studies done related to dental sciences (Shamim et al., 2017a, 2017b).

SUBMITTER: Shamim T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5988423 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dental sciences related articles data published in a Basic Medical Sciences Journal from Iran.

Shamim Thorakkal T

Data in brief 20180213

This data aimed to audit the dental sciences related articles published in Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences (IJBMS) from 2007 to 2015 over a 9 year period performed using web-based search. The data were analyzed for topic of dental sciences, type of article, international collaborations, source of funding, number of authors and authorship trends. Out of the total 18 data related to dental sciences, original articles (12), review articles (4) and short communications (2) contribute the m ...[more]

PMID: 29876446

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor?>?10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. RESULTS:We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965-2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n?=?3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n?=?3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n?=?3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n?=?18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n?=?8028 articles), Canada (n?=?4548 articles) and Germany (n?=?4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n?=?78 articles), The Lancet (n?=?9 articles) and JAMA (n?=?7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the "Bland-Altman method") and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50?years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation.

Project description:BackgroundA meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature. However, relevant study results could be missing from a meta-analysis because of selective publication and inadequate dissemination. If missing outcome data differ systematically from published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention effect. As part of the EU-funded OPEN project (www.open-project.eu) we conducted a systematic review that assessed whether the inclusion of data that were not published at all and/or published only in the grey literature influences pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses and leads to different interpretation.Methods and findingsSystematic review of published literature (methodological research projects). Four bibliographic databases were searched up to February 2016 without restriction of publication year or language. Methodological research projects were considered eligible for inclusion if they reviewed a cohort of meta-analyses which (i) compared pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses of health care interventions according to publication status of data or (ii) examined whether the inclusion of unpublished or grey literature data impacts the result of a meta-analysis. Seven methodological research projects including 187 meta-analyses comparing pooled treatment effect estimates according to different publication status were identified. Two research projects showed that published data showed larger pooled treatment effects in favour of the intervention than unpublished or grey literature data (Ratio of ORs 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.28 and 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.66). In the remaining research projects pooled effect estimates and/or overall findings were not significantly changed by the inclusion of unpublished and/or grey literature data. The precision of the pooled estimate was increased with narrower 95% confidence interval.ConclusionsAlthough we may anticipate that systematic reviews and meta-analyses not including unpublished or grey literature study results are likely to overestimate the treatment effects, current empirical research shows that this is only the case in a minority of reviews. Therefore, currently, a meta-analyst should particularly consider time, effort and costs when adding such data to their analysis. Future research is needed to identify which reviews may benefit most from including unpublished or grey data.

Project description:BackgroundAs production of rapid reviews (RRs) increases in healthcare, knowing how to efficiently convey RR evidence to various end-users is important given they are often intended to directly inform decision-making. Little is known about how often RRs are produced in the published or unpublished domains, and what and how information is structured.ObjectivesTo compare and contrast report format and content features of journal-published (JP) and non-journal published (NJP) RRs.MethodsJP RRs were identified from key databases, and NJP RRs were identified from a grey literature search of 148 RR producing organizations and were sampled proportionate to cluster size by organization and product type to match the JP RR group. We extracted and formally compared 'how' (i.e., visual arrangement) and 'what' information was presented.ResultsWe identified 103 RRs (52 JP and 51 NJP) from 2016. A higher percentage of certain features were observed in JP RRs compared to NJP RRs (e.g., reporting authors; use of a traditional journal article structure; section headers including abstract, methods, discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, conflict of interests, and author contributions; and use of figures (e.g., Study Flow Diagram) in the main document). For NJP RRs, a higher percentage of features were observed (e.g., use non-traditional report structures; bannering of executive summary sections and appendices; use of typographic cues; and including outcome tables). NJP RRs were more than double in length versus JP RRs. Including key messages was uncommon in both groups.ConclusionsThis comparative study highlights differences between JP and NJP RRs. Both groups may benefit from better use of plain language, and more clear and concise design. Alternative innovative formats and end-user preferences for content and layout should be studied further with thought given to other considerations to ensure better packaging of RR results to facilitate uptake into policy and practice.Study registrationThe full protocol is available at: https://osf.io/29xvk/.

Dataset Information

Dental sciences related articles data published in a Basic Medical Sciences Journal from Iran.

Publications

Dental sciences related articles data published in a Basic Medical Sciences Journal from Iran.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure