Statistical characteristics of analytical studies published in Peruvian medical journals from 2021 to 2022: A methodological study.

OBJECTIVE: While statistical analysis plays a crucial role in medical science, some published studies might have utilized suboptimal analysis methods, potentially undermining the credibility of their findings. Critically appraising analytical approaches can help elevate the standard of evidence and ensure clinicians and other stakeholders have trustworthy results on which to base decisions. The aim of the present study was to examine the statistical characteristics of original articles published in Peruvian medical journals in 2021-2022. DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a methodological study of articles published between 2021 and 2022 from nine medical journals indexed in SciELO-Peru, Scopus, and Medline. We included original articles that conducted analytical analyses (i.e., association between variables). The statistical variables assessed were: statistical software used for analysis, sample size, and statistical methods employed (measures of effect), controlling for confounders, and the method employed for confounder control or epidemiological approaches. RESULTS: We included 313 articles (ranging from 11 to 77 across journals), of which 67.7% were cross-sectional studies. While 90.7% of articles specified the statistical software used, 78.3% omitted details on sample size calculation. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were commonly employed, whereas measures of association were less common. Only 13.4% of articles (ranging from 0% to 39% across journals) presented measures of effect controlling for confounding and explained the criteria for selecting such confounders. CONCLUSION: This study revealed important statistical deficiencies within analytical studies published in Peruvian journals, including inadequate reporting of sample sizes, absence of measures of association and confounding control, and suboptimal explanations regarding the methodologies employed for adjusted analyses. These findings highlight the need for better statistical reporting and researcher-editor collaboration to improve the quality of research production and dissemination in Peruvian journals.

Analysis of the Types of Retracted COVID-19 Articles Published in PubMed-Listed Journals.

OBJECTIVES: Periodically, medical publications are retracted. The reasons vary from minor situations, such as author attributions, which do not undermine the validity of the data or the analysis in the article, to serious reasons, such as fraud. Understanding the reasons for retraction can provide important information for clinicians, educators, researchers, journals, and editorial boards. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched using the term "COVID-19" (coronavirus disease 2019) and the term limitation "retracted publication." The characteristics of the journals with retracted articles, the types of article, and the reasons for retraction were analyzed. RESULTS: This search recovered 196 articles that had been retracted. These retractions were published in 179 different journals; 14 journals had >1 retracted article. The mean impact factor of these journals was 8.4, with a range of 0.32-168.9. The most frequent reasons for retractions were duplicate publication, concerns about data validity and analysis, concerns about peer review, author request, and the lack of permission or ethical violation. There were significant differences between the types of article and the reasons for retraction but no consistent pattern. A more detailed analysis of two particular retractions demonstrates the complexity and the effort required to make decisions about article retractions. CONCLUSIONS: The retraction of published articles presents a significant challenge to journals, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors. This process has the potential to provide important benefits; it also has the potential to undermine confidence in both research and the editorial process.

Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review.

It is unknown to what extent medical researchers generalize study findings beyond their samples when their sample size, sample diversity, or knowledge of conditions that support external validity do not warrant it. It is also unknown to what extent medical researchers describe their results with precise quantifications or unquantified generalizations, i.e., generics, that can obscure variations between individuals. We therefore systematically reviewed all prospective studies (n = 533) published in the top four highest ranking medical journals, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), from January 2022 to May 2023. We additionally reviewed all NEJM Journal Watch clinical research summaries (n = 143) published during the same time. Of all research articles reporting prospective studies, 52.5% included generalizations beyond specific national study populations, with the numbers of articles with generics varying significantly between journals (JAMA = 12%; Lancet = 77%) (p < 0.001, V = 0.48). There was no evidence that articles containing broader generalizations or generics were correlated with larger or more nationally diverse samples. Moreover, only 10.2% of articles with generalizations beyond specific national populations reported external validity strengthening factors that could potentially support such extrapolations. There was no evidence that original research articles and NEJM Journal Watch summaries intended for practitioners differed in their use of broad generalizations, including generics. Finally, from the journal with the highest citation impact, articles containing broader conclusions were correlated with more citations. Since there was no evidence that studies with generalizations beyond specific national study populations or with generics were associated with larger, more nationally diverse samples, or with reports of population similarity that may permit extensions of conclusions, our findings suggest that the generalizations in many articles were insufficiently supported. Caution against overly broad generalizations in medical research is warranted.

[Publication in indexed journals is imperative for communication in contemporary medicine]. / La publicación en revistas indexadas es imperativa para la comunicación en la medicina contemporánea.

No Abstract available.

A bibliometric analysis of the 100 top-cited systematic review and meta-analysis in Orthodontics.

OBJECTIVE: This bibliometric study aimed to analyze the citation metrics, journal and author characteristics, and subject domains of the 100 top-cited Systematic Reviews (SR) and Meta-Analysis (MA) in orthodontics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted for SR and MA in the Web of Science on 16th July 2023, without language and time restrictions. Of the 802 hits returned, the 100 top-cited orthodontic articles were shortlisted. They were analyzed for citation metrics, journal characteristics (journal, year of publication, impact factor-IF), author and affiliation characteristics (number, primary and corresponding author's affiliation, and country), study domain, and keywords. RESULTS: These articles were published from 1996 to 2021 in 20 journals, with an impact factor of 1.9 to 10.5, by 351 researchers affiliated with 104 universities. Their citations ranged from 45 to 344, and 34 poised to be classified as classic (≥ 100 citations). The maximum number of articles was published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (n=38), the European Journal of Orthodontics (n=18), and the Angle Orthodontist (n=8). The authors for individual papers ranged from 1 to 10, with 5 being the most common (n=58). Europe had the highest contribution regarding the number of corresponding authors, institutions, and citations. Bone anchorage and orthodontic tooth movement/Biomechanics were the most frequently researched domains (n=11 each). The most common keyword used was Orthodontics (n=19), followed by Systematic Review (n=16) and Meta-analysis (n=9). CONCLUSION: In general, the top cited SR and MA were published in high-impact orthodontic journals, were multi-authored, and reflected the collaborative work from different universities.

The 100 Most Impactful Articles on Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: An Altmetric Analysis.

Background: To use the top 100 articles pertaining to total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to understand the impact that social media platforms have on the dissemination of shoulder research while highlighting bibliometric factors associated with Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) to offer insight into the impact that social media platforms have on the dissemination, attention, and citation of shoulder research publications. Methods: In June 2023, the Altmetric database was searched using the following PubMed MeSH terms: "total shoulder arthroplasty" or "TSA." Articles with the highest AAS were screened to exclude other topics unrelated to TSA. The top 100 articles that met inclusion criteria were used in the final analysis. Bibliometric factors pertaining to each study were collected for further analysis of article characteristics in accordance with prior studies. Results: The Altmetric Database query yielded 1,283 studies. After applying our inclusion criteria, the top 118 articles with the highest AAS were identified. The mean AAS was 29.14 ± 42.35, with a range of 13 to 402. The included articles represented 27 journals, with 70 articles attributed to 2 journals: Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES; 43%) and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS; 16%). There was a significant increase in AAS for the presence of a conflict of interest (p = 0.042) and open access status (p < 0.01), but no association between the score and citation rate (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Top articles on TSA, as defined by high AAS, mostly comprise original clinical research performed in the United States or Europe. The presence of a conflict of interest and open access status is associated with an increase in AAS, but there was no association between AAS score and citation rate.

75 years' journey of malaria publications in English: what and where?

Malaria has inflicted serious morbidity and mortality across the globe. The major brunt of the disease has been on African, South-East Asian and South American countries. Proportionally, malaria has attracted global research priorities and this is evident from the number of publications related to malaria from across the globe, irrespective of its endemicity. However, formal and exhaustive analyses of these 'malaria publications' are rarely reported. The systematic review and secondary data analyses were done to retrieve information on what has been published on malaria, where is it published, and which countries are major contributors to malaria research.The study presents malaria publications from 1945 to 2020 retrieved using three databases: Web of Science™, Embase® and Scopus®. Exported data were examined to determine the number of publications over time, their subject areas, contributions from various countries/organizations, and top publishing journals.The total number of published records on malaria ranged from 90,282 to 112,698 (due to three different databases). Based on the number of publications, USA, UK, France, and India were identified as the top four countries. Malaria Journal, American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, and PLoS One were the most preferred journals, whereas the University of London (Institutions other than LSHTM), the National Institute of Health, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the University of Oxford appeared to be the top contributing organization.A disproportional contribution to malaria research was observed with non-malaria endemic countries making the largest contribution. Databases differed in their output format and needed standardization to make the outputs comparable across databases.

Impact of Open Access Policy on Brazilian Science and Global Trends.

Open access (OA) publishing provides free online access to research articles without subscription fees. In Brazil, absence of financial support from academic institutions and limited government policies pose challenges to OA publication. Here, we used data from the Web of Science and Scopus to compare with global trends in journal accessibility and scientific quality metrics. Brazilian authors publish more OA articles, particularly in Global South journals. While OA correlates with quality for global authors, it had no impact on Brazilian science. To maximize impact, Brazilian authors should prioritize Q1 journals regardless of OA status. High-impact or Global North journal publication seems more relevant for Brazilian science than OA. Our findings indicate that the present open access policy has been ineffective to improve the impact of Brazilian science, providing insights to guide the formulation of scientific public policies.

Geographic Mapping of Gender Disparities in Authorship of Cardiovascular Literature.

BACKGROUND: Women in cardiology experience considerable gender disparities in publications, which hinders their career advancements to higher faculty and senior leadership positions. However, the extent of these disparities across different types of cardiovascular literature is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: We investigated gender differences in authorship across various cardiovascular publications over a decade and examined geographic variations in the representation of women authors. METHODS: All papers published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, in 4 major cardiovascular journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology, and Nature Reviews Cardiology) were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 18,535 papers with 111,562 authors, 20.6% of the authors were women, and 47.7% of the papers had no women authors. Over 10 years, the proportion of women authors remained low (20.7% in 2010 to 21.4% in 2019), with the lowest proportion in editorial papers (14.8%) and the highest in research papers (21.8%). More women as first (34.6%) and last (47.6%) authors were affiliated with institutions in the United States compared with other countries. The proportion of women middle-order authors was higher on papers with women as first authors (29.4% vs 20.5%) or last authors (30.6% vs 21.3%), compared with papers with men as first or last authors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past decade, the proportion of women authors across all article types in major cardiovascular journals remained low. A call to action is needed to promote women in cardiology and provide them with equitable opportunities.

[Analysis of highly cited papers in Chinese Journal of Epidemiology from 2020 to 2023].

Objective: To analyze the characteristics of highly-cited papers in Chinese Journal of Epidemiology from 2020 to 2023, and provide a basis for subsequent paper solicitation and identify research hotspots. Methods: On December 9, 2023, the citation frequency of each paper in Chinese Journal of Epidemiology from 2020 to 2023 was obtained from China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The total citation frequency of each paper was sorted using Excel 2016 software, and papers with citation frequency ≥30 were extracted for analysis. The keywords of the papers and Contents in Brief were analyzed. Results: A total of 1 317 papers were included in the analysis, of which 389, 342, 308 and 278 papers were included from 2020 to 2023. The total citation frequency was 11 873, and all papers were cited with an average citation frequency of 9. The keywords with high citation frequency in the papers included 2019-nCoV, hypertension, colorectal tumor, hand-foot-mouth disease, hepatitis B. and the average frequency of citation were 162, 77, 62, 51 and 47, respectively. There were 15 highly cited Contents in Brief in total, 11 of which are vital Contents in Brief or unique Contents in Brief, including Response to COVID-19 Epidemic, China Kadoorie Biobank, Epidemiological Research on Infectious Diseases, Healthy Ageing, Colorectal Cancer Prevention and Control, Prevention and Control of Hepatitis B, Quality Assessment of Cancer Screening Guidelines and Consensus, The 40th Anniversary of Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, Expert Forum, Review, Standard-Protocol-Guide. The total citation frequency was 3 951, accounting for 72.6% (3 951/5 438) of highly cited papers. Conclusions: In the past four years, the highly cited papers of this journal mainly focused on the research field of emerging infectious diseases and chronic diseases. The response to the 2019-nCoV epidemic highlights the academic leading role. The effect of selecting and planning a topic, commissioning authors to write on given topics and making an arrangement in advance with a subject for contribution to vital Contents in Brief or unique Contents in Brief of this journal is pronounced, and the academic influence of the journal continues to improve.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Research Publications in Critical Care.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a significant transformation of scientific journals. Our aim was to determine how critical care (CC) journals and their impact may have evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the impact, as measured by citations and publications, from the field of CC would increase. DESIGN: Observational study of journal publications, citations, and retractions status. SETTING: All work was done electronically and retrospectively. SUBJECTS: The top 18 CC journals broadly concerning CC, and the top 5 most productive CC journals on the SCImago list. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the top 18 CC journals and specifically Critical Care Medicine (CCM), time series analysis was used to estimate the trends of total citations, citations per publication, and publications per year by using the best-fit curve. We used PubMed and Retraction Watch to determine the number of COVID-19 publications and retractions. The average total citations and citations per publication for all journals was an upward quadratic trend with inflection points in 2020, whereas publications per year spiked in 2020 before returning to prepandemic values in 2021. For CCM total publications trend downward while total citations and citations per publication generally trend up from 2017 onward. CCM had the lowest percentage of COVID-related publications (15.7%) during the pandemic and no reported retractions. Two COVID-19 retractions were noted in our top five journals. CONCLUSIONS: Citation activity across top CC journals underwent a dramatic increase during the COVID-19 pandemic without significant retraction data. These trends suggest that the impact of CC has grown significantly since the onset of COVID-19 while maintaining adherence to a high-quality peer-review process.

Trends in Research on Acute Kidney Injury: A Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journals Published Between the Years 2000 and 2022.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a significant global health concern that was first recognized in 2004 and has subsequently affected more than thirteen million individuals each year, resulting in 1.7 million deaths. The present study explored the evolving of the research on AKI worldwide, specifically addressing the analysis of the  trends between the years 2000 and 2022 using the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). CiteSpace software was employed to analyze 19,741 literature sources, which revealed shifts in keyword dynamics from foundational disease research to treatment prognosis and humanistic care. The keyword outbreaks occurred in the years 2004, 2010, and 2019 (i.e., significant occurrences or peaks related  to the specified keyword were observed in the years 2004, 2010, and 2019). The present study highlighted the transition of AKI studies from the initial concerns regarding definitions to further comprehensive inquiries regarding biomarkers, etiology, inductors, prediction, and prognosis. The future research focus could include  the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), machine learning, and continuous renal replacement treatment within the AKI realm. DOI: 10.52547/ijkd.8018.

Sex and gender-based analysis and diversity metric reporting in acute care trials published in high-impact journals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome. DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials. RESULTS: We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022282565.

Gender disparity between first and senior authors on liver cancer research in the top journals of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparity is pervasive in academic medicine. This study aimed to assess the disparity between men and women with regard to first and senior author positions in primary studies on liver cancer over the last two decades. METHODS: We conducted a review of articles published in high-impact factor journals of the field of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. First and senior authors of all ages were considered as the study population. The authors' genders were determined using the online artificial intelligence tool genderize.io (https://genderize.io/). The disparity between men and women authors was assessed using the linear-by-linear association test. RESULTS: 665 original articles from 10 journals were reviewed. The point prevalence of first women authors was 25.0% compared with 75.0% for men. The point prevalence of senior women authors was 16.3% compared with 83.7% for men. From 2000 to 2020, the proportion of first women authors increased 14.4% to 26.8% compared with 85.6%-73.2% for men (P = 0.009), and the proportion of senior women authors increased from 7.4% to 19.5%, compared with 92.6%-80.5% for men (P = 0.035). The factor independently associated with a reduced representation of women among first authors was the region of author. The factor independently associated with a reduced representation of women among senior authors was the impact factor of journals. CONCLUSION: The findings indicated a remarkable increase in the proportion of women, both first and senior authors, over the past two decades in the field of liver cancers. However, the representation of women authors in this area is far less than that of men.

Does Reader Engagement with Neurosurgery Journal Websites Correlate with the Number of Citations Received by Articles?

BACKGROUND: Medicine has begun adapting to new information-sharing paradigms in the hyper-connected social media era. In this milieu, the role of journal websites in the dissemination of clinical and research information needs to be reevaluated. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether reader engagement with neurosurgical journal websites, reflected by the number of article views and downloads, correlated with the eventual number of citations received by the articles. METHODS: The websites of all Medline indexed neurosurgical journals were screened to identify those that provided information regarding the number of abstract and full text views and downloads. Articles published in these journals between July 2010 and June 2011 were included in this analysis. Various article attributes were identified and the number of citations per article was obtained from Google Scholar. The impact factors of the selected journals for the year 2010 were obtained from the Journal Citation Reports. RESULTS: Twenty-two journals that had published 2527 articles were finally included in this analysis. The number of abstract views, full-text views, and downloads all correlated strongly with the journal impact factors in 2010 as well as the eventual citations per article. The number of article downloads independently predicted the citations per article on multivariate analysis. Neurology India had significantly higher article views and downloads but lower citations per article than the other journals. CONCLUSIONS: Readers were found to engage significantly with neurosurgical journal websites and therefore, open access to articles would lead to increased visibility of articles, resulting in higher citation rates.

K-Means clustering of dermatology journals: comparing the distribution of "free-to-publish" and "pay-to-publish" models.

This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.