Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 31.173
Filtrar
4.
Sao Paulo Med J ; 139(1): 3-9, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33656129

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of the new coronavirus has culminated in a scientific race to seek knowledge about this virus and its treatments, vaccines and preventive strategies, in order to reduce its impact on healthcare and economics worldwide. Hence, it is important to recognize the efforts of researchers who are at the forefront of investigations relating to the new coronavirus. OBJECTIVE: The present study was carried out with the aim of analyzing the world scientific production relating to COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Exploratory and descriptive bibliometric study conducted in the city of Teresina (PI), Brazil. METHOD: ISI Web of Knowledge/Web of Science (WOS) was chosen as the database. Data-gathering was carried out in May 2020. The data analysis was performed using the HistCiteTM software, version 9.8.24, and the VOSviewer bibliometric analysis software, version 1.6.8. RESULTS: 2,625 published papers that included descriptors within the scope of this investigation were identified. These articles were published in 859 different journals that are indexed in WOS, by 9,791 authors who were linked to 3,365 research institutions, located in 105 countries. CONCLUSION: Ascertaining scientific production through a bibliometric analysis is important in order to guide researchers on what has already been produced and what is being researched, so as to be able to address gaps in knowledge through future research.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Edición/tendencias , Humanos , Pandemias
6.
Recenti Prog Med ; 112(3): 173-181, 2021 03.
Artículo en Italiano | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33687354

RESUMEN

When a pandemic occurs, scientific research moves fast in order to achieve readily results, such as effective therapies to fight the SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. But this high-speed science, engaged by the emergency and characterized by the explosion of online publications in preprint form not subject to scrutiny by peer reviewers, carries some risks. And it represents a challenge to maintain research integrity and to comply with those globally recognized standard principles of fairness. Competition and the pressure to publish immediately - a way of encouraging rapid data sharing - can favor the dissemination of incomplete if not erroneous results obtained from partial studies, which feed false news, such as the benefits of a drug, and illusory hopes. It is commonly through press releases that "speed science" disseminates information to an audience that wants to be informed and reassured. Financial and political interests often mix with the urgency to find solutions. Covid-19 has highlighted in particular the risk of a politicization of science at the expense of transparency.


Asunto(s)
Pandemias , Edición/normas , Investigación/normas , Adenosina Monofosfato/análogos & derivados , Adenosina Monofosfato/economía , Adenosina Monofosfato/provisión & distribución , Adenosina Monofosfato/uso terapéutico , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/economía , Alanina/provisión & distribución , Alanina/uso terapéutico , Antivirales/economía , Antivirales/provisión & distribución , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Brotes de Enfermedades , Aprobación de Drogas , Unión Europea , Humanos , Gripe Humana/tratamiento farmacológico , Gripe Humana/economía , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Difusión de la Información , Consentimiento Informado , Oseltamivir/economía , Oseltamivir/provisión & distribución , Oseltamivir/uso terapéutico , Revisión de la Investigación por Pares , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Política , Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Estados Unidos
7.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(3): e22219, 2021 03 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33600347

RESUMEN

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19-related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field.


Asunto(s)
/epidemiología , Recolección de Datos/métodos , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Recolección de Datos/normas , Humanos , Revisión de la Investigación por Pares/normas , Edición/normas , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , /aislamiento & purificación
10.
Br J Surg ; 108(1): e47, 2021 01 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33640912

Asunto(s)
Humanos , Edición
11.
Br J Surg ; 108(1): e46, 2021 01 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33640913

Asunto(s)
Humanos , Edición
12.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 96(2): 420-426, 2021 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33549260

RESUMEN

Unpublished randomized controlled trial (RCT) frequency, correlates, and financial impact are not well understood. We sought to characterize the nonpublication of peer-reviewed manuscripts among interventional, therapeutic, multi-arm, phase 3 oncology RCTs. Trials were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, while publications and abstracts were identified through PubMed and Google Scholar. Trial data were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov and individual publications. Publication was defined as a peer-reviewed manuscript addressing the primary endpoint. Patient accrual cost was extrapolated from experimental data; investigators/sponsors were contacted to determine nonpublication reasons. Six hundred eighty-four completed RCTs met inclusion criteria, which accrued 434,610 patients from 1994 to 2015; 638 were published (93.3%) and 46 were unpublished (6.7%). Among the unpublished trials, the time difference from primary endpoint maturity to data abstraction was a median of 6 years (interquartile range, 4 to 8 years). On multiple binary logistic regression analysis, factors associated with unpublished trials included lack of cooperative group sponsorship (odds ratio, 5.91, 95% CI, 1.35 to 25.97; P=.019) and supportive care investigation (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.13 to 7.41; P=.027). The estimated inflation-adjusted average cost of patient accrual for all unpublished trials was $113,937,849 (range, $41,136,883 to $320,201,063). Direct contact with sponsors/investigators led to a 50.0% response rate (n=23 of 46); manuscript in preparation and/or in submission (n=10 of 23) was the most commonly cited reason for nonpublication. In conclusion, approximately 1 in 15 clinical oncology RCTs are unpublished and this has a profound impact on the research enterprise. The cooperative group infrastructure may serve as a blueprint to reduce nonpublication.


Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Oncología Médica , Edición , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Humanos , Revisión de la Investigación por Pares
14.
Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi ; 23(2): 198-201, 2021 Feb.
Artículo en Chino | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33627218

RESUMEN

No abstract available.


Asunto(s)
Edición , Humanos
15.
Artículo en Ruso | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33605124

RESUMEN

Development of medical rehabilitation technologies are the investments into «human capital¼. The effectiveness criterion of the scientific institutions work dealing with the problems of rehabilitation is the scientific publication activity of their employees in this subject in high-ranking international databases (DB).Purpose of the study. Analysis of the state of the scientific publication flow in the field of rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the Web of Science and Scopus databases for November 2019, depth from 1991 to 2018 were used. RESULTS: It was revealed that the high level of the publication rating of Russia, which was noted in 1991-1992, has not yet been achieved in the Scopus database for medical rehabilitation. Measures have been identified to enhance it by increasing the growth rate of the Russian publication flow. It also noted the necessity to reduce Russia's dependence on the monopoly of foreign publishing corporations by creating domestic Russian resources and borrowing the experience of foreign colleagues. CONCLUSION: The necessary measures should be taken at the level of authors, scientific organizations, the scientific community and the State in order to increase the Russian scientific publication flow in the direction of «Rehabilitation¼ in foreign top-rated databases. Authors of interdisciplinary articles need to correctly present metadata indicating the relation of the work to the problem of rehabilitation. The necessity is substantiated not only to increase the share of Russian scientific journals in international databases, but also to create domestic high-rating databases, as well as to harmonize the existing regulatory legal acts in regards of terms and definitions in the field of rehabilitation, to bring the headings of the Universal Decimal Classification aligned with the headings of high-ranking international databases. Given the high social significance of the «Rehabilitation¼ area, it is necessary to include it in the priority list and funded areas at a level corresponding to global trends.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Edición , Humanos , Federación de Rusia
18.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol ; 259(3): 733-744, 2021 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33537883

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the gender gap in academic publishing. This study assesses COVID-19's impact on ophthalmology gender authorship distribution and compares the gender authorship proportion of COVID-19 ophthalmology-related articles to previous ophthalmology articles. METHODS: This cohort study includes authors listed in all publications related to ophthalmology in the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset and CDC COVID-19 research database. Articles from 65 ophthalmology journals from January to July 2020 were selected. All previous articles published in the same journals were extracted from PubMed. Gender-API determined authors' gender. RESULTS: Out of 119,457 COVID-19-related articles, we analyzed 528 ophthalmology-related articles written by 2518 authors. Women did not exceed 40% in any authorship positions and were most likely to be middle, first, and finally, last authors. The proportions of women in all authorship positions from the 2020 COVID-19 group (29.6% first, 31.5% middle, 22.1% last) are significantly lower compared to the predicted 2020 data points (37.4% first, 37.0% middle, 27.6% last) (p < .01). The gap between the proportion of female authors in COVID-19 ophthalmology research and the 2020 ophthalmology-predicted proportion (based on 2002-2019 data) is 6.1% for overall authors, 7.8% for first authors, and 5.5% for last and middle authors. The 2020 COVID-19 authorship group (1925 authors) was also compared to the 2019 group (33,049 authors) based on journal category (clinical/basic science research, general/subspecialty ophthalmology, journal impact factor). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 amplified the authorship gender gap in ophthalmology. When compared to previous years, there was a greater decrease in women's than men's academic productivity.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Oftalmología/tendencias , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Distribución por Sexo , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Médicos Mujeres/estadística & datos numéricos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...