Publications on Clinical Research in Otolaryngology-A Systematic Analysis of Leading Journals in 2010.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kaper NM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6467099 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To describe the conditions studied, interventions used, study characteristics, and funding sources of otolaryngology clinical trials from the ClinicalTrials.gov database; compare this otolaryngology cohort of interventional studies to clinical visits in a health care system; and assess agreement between clinical trials and clinical activity.Database analysis.Trial registration data downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov and administrative data from the Duke University Medical Center from October 1, 2007 to September 27, 2010.Data extraction from ClinicalTrials.gov was done using MeSH and non-MeSH disease condition terms. Studies were subcategorized to create the following groupings for descriptive analysis: ear, nose, allergy, voice, sleep, head and neck cancer, thyroid, and throat. Duke Health System visits were queried by using selected ICD-9 codes for otolaryngology and non-otolaryngology providers. Visits were grouped similarly to ClinicalTrials.gov for further analysis. Chi-square tests were used to explore differences between groups.A total of 1115 of 40,970 registered interventional trials were assigned to otolaryngology. Head and neck cancer trials predominated. Study models most frequently incorporated parallel design (54.6%), 2 study groups (46.6%), and randomization (69.1%). Phase 2 or 3 studies constituted 46.4% of the cohort. Comparison of the ClinicalTrials.gov database with administrative health system visit data by disease condition showed discordance between national research activity and clinical visit volume for patients with otolaryngology complaints.Analysis of otolaryngology-related clinical research as listed in ClinicalTrials.gov can inform patients, physicians, and policy makers about research focus areas. The relative burden of otolaryngology-associated conditions in our tertiary health system exceeds research activity within the field.
| S-EPMC4121965 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8654585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this article we discuss the five yearly screenings for publications in questionable journals which have been carried out in the context of the performance-based research funding model in Flanders, Belgium. The Flemish funding model expanded from 2010 onwards, with a comprehensive bibliographic database for research output in the social sciences and humanities. Along with an overview of the procedures followed during the screenings for articles in questionable journals submitted for inclusion in this database, we present a bibliographic analysis of the publications identified. First, we show how the yearly number of publications in questionable journals has evolved over the period 2003-2016. Second, we present a disciplinary classification of the identified journals. In the third part of the results section, three authorship characteristics are discussed: multi-authorship, the seniority-or experience level-of authors in general and of the first author in particular, and the relation of the disciplinary scope of the journal (cognitive classification) with the departmental affiliation of the authors (organizational classification). Our results regarding yearly rates of publications in questionable journals indicate that awareness of the risks of questionable journals does not lead to a turn away from open access in general. The number of publications in open access journals rises every year, while the number of publications in questionable journals decreases from 2012 onwards. We find further that both early career and more senior researchers publish in questionable journals. We show that the average proportion of senior authors contributing to publications in questionable journals is somewhat higher than that for publications in open access journals. In addition, this paper yields insight into the extent to which publications in questionable journals pose a threat to the public and political legitimacy of a performance-based research funding system of a western European region. We include concrete suggestions for those tasked with maintaining bibliographic databases and screening for publications in questionable journals.
| S-EPMC6839901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is no consensus if electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) should be used to reduce harm among the smoking population. Physicians, who represent a trusted source of health communication, are exposed to a range of often conflicting ENDS information and this information may be relayed to patients looking to quit smoking. Previous studies have examined ENDS content of various sources of media but there is a lack of knowledge about ENDS content in medical journals. We analyzed 421 ENDS publications printed between 2012 and 2018 from PubMed's Core Clinical Journal list. Publications were analyzed based on publication type, journal type, study design, geographic focus, theme, terminology, outcomes, and positive/negative statements. The number of ENDS publications grew since 2012, and peaked in 2015. Across all years, negative statements about ENDS outnumbered positive statements, though this difference decreased over time. Over time, negative statements about "toxins and carcinogens" were made less frequently, while negative statements about "gateway effects" and "youth appeal" became more prevalent. UK journals had fewer negative statements relative to US journals. Only 12.6% of publications included guidance for healthcare professionals about ENDS. As published ENDS topics change over time, physicians' communications with patients may be impacted.
| S-EPMC7177383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: In the past decade, scientific research has developed rapidly in China, but the growth seems to vary widely between different disciplines. In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of publications in urology and nephrology journals from USA, China and Japan. METHODS: Journals listed in the "Urology and Nephrology" category of Science Citation Index Expanded subject categories were included. Scientific papers in these journals written by researchers from USA, Japan and China were retrieved from the "PubMed" and "Web of Knowledge" online databases. RESULTS: The annual number of total scientific articles increased significantly from 2001 to 2010 in China, and has ranked second in the world since 2006. In the field of urology and nephrology, the annual number increased significantly from 2001 to 2010 in USA and China; but not in Japan. The share of articles increased significantly over time in China, decreased significantly in Japan, and remained unchanged in USA. In 2010, USA contributed 32.17% of the total world output in urology and nephrology field and ranked 1(st); Japan contributed 5.19% and ranked 5(th); China contributed 3.83% and ranked 9(th). Publications from USA had the highest accumulated IFs and the highest total citations of articles (USA>Japan>China, p<0.001). No significant difference was found in average IF among the three countries. USA published the most articles in the top 10 urology and nephrology journals (USA(35165)>Japan(6704)>China(2233), p<0.001). Researchers from USA published more clinical trials and randomized controlled trials than Japan and China (USA>Japan>China, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Although China has undergone significant increase in annual number and percentage of scientific publication in urology and nephrology journals in the past decade, it still lags far behind USA and Japan in the field of urology and nephrology in terms of quantity and quality.
| S-EPMC3411650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an infodemic about the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 outbreak to build knowledge and develop mitigation strategies. In addition, scientific journals across the world have studied the impact of COVID-19 on trauma and orthopaedics.MethodsA cross-sectional, bibliometric analysis of the literature was undertaken on COVID-19 related articles from three Pubmed and Scopus threeindexed orthopaedic journals from India, namely, Indian Journal of Orthopaedics(IJO),Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma(JCOT), and Journal of Orthopaedics(JOO), in May 2021. All the article types and study designs were included for this review. The authors, institutions, countries, keywords, and co-authorship mapping were studied.ResultsA total of 112 COVID-19 related documents were retrieved. Period of these publications was from 2nd April 2020 to 31st May 2021. Vaishya R. (n = 16) was the most cited author, and Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals (n = 16) was the most cited research Institution. India led the list of countries in academic publication output. On keyword mapping, telemedicine was the most prominent Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search word.ConclusionThe Indian orthopedic journals have addressed the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic practice in India and aborad whilst continuing to publish knowledge about basic science and clinical orthopaedic research studies. The JCOT has outperformed and become the most leading orthopaedic journal from India during the pandemic. COVID -19 articles have been fast tracked, open accessed and attracted more citations in reduced duration of time compared to non-COVID-19 papers.
| S-EPMC8480149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An abundance of publications on medical professionalism have been published in recent years. Our study aimed to analyze the external characteristics of publications on professionalism using bibliometrics, to describe its current developments and trends, and to explore professionalism research hotspots using co-word analysis. We retrieved literature on professionalism published from 2010 to 2019 from the Web of Science database. Histcite and CiteSpace were used to analyze external characteristics of publications, including publication trends and distributions of publications by country/region, institution, author, and journal. Co-word analysis was conducted to analyze research hotspots, using the Bibliographic Item Co-Occurrence Matrix Builder and Graphical Clustering Toolkit. We constructed a strategic diagram to show the state of each research hotspot and the relationship between the various hotspots in this field. Results showed publications on professionalism increased in number year by year as a whole. The USA, including its institutions and authors, maintained the top position worldwide in terms of numbers of publications and citations. Among scholarly journals, Academic Medicine has published more articles and has had higher citations per paper than any other journal. Six research hotspots on professionalism were identified, visualized, and expounded. Of these, the theme of "measurement and evaluation of clinical competence" received the most attention in the field of professionalism. The reporting of quantifiable knowledge on the characteristics and research hotspots of publications could help inform gaps in the field of medical professionalism and provide evidence and guidance for future work for researchers, physicians, and educators.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-03993-0.
| S-EPMC8256397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe analyzed the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) to understand leading research institutions, collaborations among institutions, major publication venues, key research concepts, and topics covered by pandemic-related research.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive analysis of authors' institutions and relationships, automatic content extraction of key words and phrases from titles and abstracts, and topic modeling and evolution. Data visualization techniques were applied to present the results of the analysis.ResultsWe found that leading research institutions on COVID-19 included the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the US National Institutes of Health, and the University of California. Research studies mostly involved collaboration among different institutions at national and international levels. In addition to bioRxiv, major publication venues included journals such as The BMJ, PLOS One, Journal of Virology, and The Lancet. Key research concepts included the coronavirus, acute respiratory impairments, health care, and social distancing. The ten most popular topics were identified through topic modeling and included human metapneumovirus and livestock, clinical outcomes of severe patients, and risk factors for higher mortality rate.ConclusionData analytics is a powerful approach for quickly processing and understanding large-scale datasets like CORD-19. This approach could help medical librarians, researchers, and the public understand important characteristics of COVID-19 research and could be applied to the analysis of other large datasets.
| S-EPMC8485960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch investments are essential to address the burden of disease, however allocation of limited resources is poorly documented. We systematically reviewed the investments awarded by funding organisations to UK institutions and their global partners for infectious disease research.Methodology/principal findingsPublic and philanthropic investments for the period 1997 to 2010 were included. We categorised studies by infectious disease, cross-cutting theme, and by research and development value chain, reflecting the type of science. We identified 6165 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK £2.6 billion. Public organisations provided £1.4 billion (54.0%) of investments compared with £1.1 billion (42.4%) by philanthropic organisations. Global health studies represented an investment of £928 million (35.7%). The Wellcome Trust was the leading investor with £688 million (26.5%), closely followed by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) with £673 million (25.9%). Funding over time was volatile, ranging from ?£40 million to ?£160 million per year for philanthropic organisations and ?£30 million to ?£230 million for public funders.Conclusions/significanceInfectious disease research funding requires global coordination and strategic long-term vision. Our analysis demonstrates the diversity and inconsistent patterns in investment, with volatility in annual funding amounts and limited investment for product development and clinical trials.
| S-EPMC4146508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To develop a method for investigating co-authorship patterns and author team characteristics associated with the publications in high-impact journals through the integration of public MEDLINE data and institutional scientific profile data.For all current researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, we extracted their publications from MEDLINE authored between years 2007 and 2011 and associated journal impact factors, along with author academic ranks and departmental affiliations obtained from Columbia University Scientific Profiles (CUSP). Chi-square tests were performed on co-authorship patterns, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, to identify team composition characteristics associated with publication impact factors. We also developed co-authorship networks for the 25 most prolific departments between years 2002 and 2011 and counted the internal and external authors, inter-connectivity, and centrality of each department.Papers with at least one author from a basic science department are significantly more likely to appear in high-impact journals than papers authored by those from clinical departments alone. Inclusion of at least one professor on the author list is strongly associated with publication in high-impact journals, as is inclusion of at least one research scientist. Departmental and disciplinary differences in the ratios of within- to outside-department collaboration and overall network cohesion are also observed.Enrichment of co-authorship patterns with author scientific profiles helps uncover associations between author team characteristics and appearance in high-impact journals. These results may offer implications for mentoring junior biomedical researchers to publish on high-impact journals, as well as for evaluating academic progress across disciplines in modern academic medical centers.
| S-EPMC4260991 | biostudies-literature