Research designs of publications in radiography professional journals - A modified bibliometric analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence based practice relies on availability of research evidence mostly through peer-reviewed journal publications. No consensus currently exists on the best hierarchy of research evidence, often categorised by the adopted research designs. Analysing the prevalent research designs in radiography professional journals is one vital step in considering an evidence hierarchy specific to the radiography profession and this forms the aim of this study. METHODS: Bibliometric data of publications in three Radiography professional journals within a 10-year period were extracted. The Digital Object Identifier were used to locate papers on publishers' websites and obtain relevant data for analysis. Descriptive analysis using frequencies and percentages were used to represent data while Chi-square was used to analyse relationship between categorical variables. RESULTS: 1830 articles met the pre-set inclusion criteria. Quantitative descriptive studies were the most published design (26.6%) followed by non-RCT experimental studies (18.7%), while Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) were the least published (1.0%). Systematic reviews (42.9%) showed the highest average percentage increase within the 10-year period, however RCTs showed no net increase. Single-centre studies predominated among experimental studies (RCT = 88.9%; Non-RCT = 95%). Author collaboration across all study designs was notable, with RCTs showing the most (100%). Quantitative and qualitative studies comparatively had similar number of citations when publication numbers were matched. Quantitative descriptive studies had the highest cumulative citations while RCTs had the least. CONCLUSION: There is a case to advocate for more study designs towards the peak of evidence hierarchies such as systematic reviews and RCT. Radiography research should be primarily designed to answer pertinent questions and improve the validity of the profession's evidence base. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The evidence presented can encourage the adoption of the research designs that enhances radiography profession's evidence base.

Trends in diversity, equity and inclusion publications in neurological journals: 2015-2020.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary information on health equity related efforts by scientific neurological journals, as measured by publications related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and health disparities related to social determinants of health (SDH) are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the yearly rates of DEI and SDH related publications in the highest cited general neurology and neurological sub-specialty journals and compare them to the highest cited medical journals over a 6-year period. METHODS: We included publications from 15 general neurology and neurological subspecialty journals between January 1st 2015 to December 31st 2020. For comparison we included the 15 most cited medical journals as measured by H-Index. We performed a PubMed search in each of the listed journals using key MeSH terms. Two-proportions Z-test and chi-square trend analyses were used to compare differences between journal types. RESULTS: Total yearly proportion of DEI and SDH related publications in neurological journals was 3.9% compared to 6.2% in the highest cited medical journals for years 2015 to 2020 (p=0.001). There was no change in overall trend in publications related to DEI and SDH topics in neurological (ρ = -0.082, p=0.45) or highest cited medical journals between 2015 and 2020 (ρ = -0.065, p=0.54). CONCLUSION: Neurological journals had a significantly lower yearly proportion of DEI and SDH related publications compared to top-cited medical journals. Despite heightened awareness of racial/ethnic health disparities and inequities driven by SDH there was no change in related publications in neurological journals between 2015-2020.

Comparison of noninferiority margins reported in protocols and publications showed incomplete and inconsistent reporting.

OBJECTIVES: To compare noninferiority margins defined in study protocols and trial registry records with margins reported in subsequent publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of protocols of noninferiority trials submitted 2001 to 2005 to ethics committees in Switzerland and The Netherlands with corresponding publications and registry records. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library issue 01/2012), and Google Scholar in September 2013 to identify published reports, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization in March 2013 to identify registry records. Two readers recorded the noninferiority margin and other data using a standardized data-abstraction form. RESULTS: The margin was identical in study protocol and publication in 43 (80%) of 54 pairs of study protocols and articles. In the remaining pairs, reporting was inconsistent (five pairs, 9%), or the noninferiority margin was either not reported in the publication (five pairs, 9%) or not defined in the study protocol (one pair). The confidence interval or the exact P-value required to judge whether the result was compatible with noninferior, inferior, or superior efficacy was reported in 43 (80%) publications. Complete and consistent reporting of both noninferiority margin and confidence interval (or exact P-value) was present in 39 (72%) protocol-publication pairs. Twenty-nine trials (54%) were registered in trial registries, but only one registry record included the noninferiority margin. CONCLUSION: The reporting of noninferiority margins was incomplete and inconsistent with study protocols in a substantial proportion of published trials, and margins were rarely reported in trial registries.

Um “raio-x” da produção do conhecimento sobre educação física escolar: análise de periódicos de 2006 a 2012 / Una radiografía de la producción de conocimiento sobre educación física escolar: análisis de publicaciones científicas entre 2006 y 2012 / An “x-ray” of knowledge production on school physical education: analysis of journals published from 2006 to 2012

O objetivo do trabalho é analisar tendências da pesquisa em Educação Física Escolar no Brasil. Desenvolveu-se revisão sistemática em periódicos nacionais, de 2006 a 2012. A produção dessa área representa apenas 16,20% do total de artigos publicados. Entre os delineamentos, pesquisas bibliográficas e de campo se destacaram. Os estudos de enfoque diagnóstico se sobressaíram. Observa-se ainda uma tendência de crescimento em estudos de intervenção pedagógica, tal como no cenário internacional. Considerando a relevância social da Educação Física Escolar, faz-se necessário fomentar políticas de pesquisa e pós-graduação que atendam às especificidades da área.

This study aims at assessing research trends on school physical education in Brazil. A systematic review was conducted in national journals published from 2006 to 2012. Production in the field represents only 16.20% of the total of articles published, and bibliographic and field research stood out. Diagnostic studies were prominent. There is also an increasing trend in pedagogical intervention studies, as well as in the international scenario. Considering the social relevance of school Physical Education, it is necessary to foster research and graduate policies that meet the specifics of that field.

El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar tendencias en la investigación en Educación Física escolar en Brasil. Fue realizada una revisión sistemática en publicaciones científicas nacionales entre 2006 y 2012. La producción en el área representa sólo un 16,20% del total de artículos publicados. Destacaron las investigaciones bibliográficas y de campo. Los estudios con enfoque diagnóstico también tuvieron destaque. Además, se observa una tendencia de crecimiento en estudios de intervención pedagógica, tal como ocurre en el escenario internacional. Considerando la importancia social de la Educación Física escolar, se hace necesario fomentar políticas de investigación y posgrado centradas en las especificidades del área.

Fate of abstracts presented at the 2009 American Transplant Congress.

INTRODUCTION: Oral and poster presentations at major meetings serve to rapidly present and share study results with the scientific community. On the other hand, full-text publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals provides dissemination of knowledge. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2009 American Transplant Congress (ATC), to assess the factors influencing publication and determine the impact factor of these journals. METHODS: All abstracts presented at the 2009 ATC were included in the study. A Pubmed-Medline search was performed to identify a matching journal article. Topics, country of origin, study type, study center and publication year were tabulated. Journals and impact factors of publication were noted. RESULTS: Out of 1938 oral and posters abstracts presented, 103 (16.6%) of oral abstracts and 141 poster abstracts (10.9%) were published as full-text articles. Publication rates according to topics of the meeting and country of origin did demonstrate statistical significant differences (p < 0.05). Single-centered studies had higher publication rates 70.87% (73/103) than multi-centered studies among oral abstracts. Abstracts from multi-centered studies had higher publication rates among poster abstracts (68.09% vs. 31.91%), and the journals they were published in had higher impact factors than single center studies (4.578 vs. 3.897). The median impact factor of the journals was 4.2 (4.8 for oral presentations and 3.627 for poster presentations) that went on to be published as full text manuscripts. When comparing multi-center and single institutions, the difference between 12 month and 24 month publication rates was not statistically significant (p = 0.5443 and 0.1134). However, oral and poster abstracts published by study center (multi/single) did demonstrate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001); comparing the type of study, there was also a statistically significant difference between the oral and poster abstract (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The publication rate for abstracts of this 2009 ATC was lower than rates from other fields of medicine. Factors leading to failure require elucidation. Encouraging authors to submit their presentations for full-text publication might improve the rate of publication. Authors should be wary of accepting oral and poster abstracts as dogma; authors should refrain from citing them in publications especially if they are from outside United States and are about liver and kidney transplantation.