Brazilian authors don't cite Brazilian authors: Nothing has changed since 1994.

Objective To outline the profile of self-citations from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Rev Bras Ortop) and citations of this journal in other medical orthopaedic journals with general or specific content in a knowledge area of the specialty. Methods This is an observational cross-sectional study of the frequency of self-citations and citations from Rev Bras Ortop in five other medical orthopaedic journals from different countries, all published in English. The last 15 articles published in 2020 in each of the six journals were analyzed. The references used in each of them were evaluated to identify the journal in which they were originally published. The frequency of distribution of the four main journals cited, their position, and the relative percentage to the total number of citations were observed and recorded in each of the six journals. The number of times that the Rev Bras Ortop was cited in each of the selected foreign journals was assessed using its absolute and relative frequencies. Results The total number of citations evaluated in this study was 2,527 (ranging from 386 to 486 per magazine). Rev Bras Ortop showed a low rate of self-citation (2.6%), being the sixth journal cited in the journal itself (10 out of a total of 386 references). Moreover, Rev Bras Ortop was not mentioned in any of the other five medical journals included in the study (absolute frequency 0, relative frequency 0). Conclusion Rev Bras Ortop has a low reference of itself, with a self-citation rate of 2.6% in the studied period, showing that the Brazilian orthopaedic surgeons do not mention the Brazilian orthopaedic surgeon who publishes in the journal. We suggest the elaboration and implementation of strong strategies to improve the journal's visibility in the world academic-scientific scenario. In addition, it is essential that Brazilian orthopaedic surgeons understand this reality and assist directly and effectively to change this scenario.

Brazilian authors don't cite Brazilian authors: Nothing has changed since 1994 / Os Autores brasileiros não citam os autores brasileiros: Nada mudou desde 1994

Abstract Objective To outline the profile of self-citations from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Rev Bras Ortop) and citations of this journal in other medical orthopaedic journals with general or specific content in a knowledge area of the specialty. Methods This is an observational cross-sectional study of the frequency of self-citations and citations from Rev Bras Ortop in five other medical orthopaedic journals from different countries, all published in English. The last 15 articles published in 2020 in each of the six journals were analyzed. The references used in each of them were evaluated to identify the journal in which they were originally published. The frequency of distribution of the four main journals cited, their position, and the relative percentage to the total number of citations were observed and recorded in each of the six journals. The number of times that the Rev Bras Ortop was cited in each of the selected foreign journals was assessed using its absolute and relative frequencies. Results The total number of citations evaluated in this study was 2,527 (ranging from 386 to 486 per magazine). Rev Bras Ortop showed a low rate of self-citation (2.6%), being the sixth journal cited in the journal itself (10 out of a total of 386 references). Moreover, Rev Bras Ortop was not mentioned in any of the other five medical journals included in the study (absolute frequency 0, relative frequency 0). Conclusion Rev Bras Ortop has a low reference of itself, with a self-citation rate of 2.6% in the studied period, showing that the Brazilian orthopaedic surgeons do not mention the Brazilian orthopaedic surgeon who publishes in the journal. We suggest the elaboration and implementation of strong strategies to improve the journal's visibility in the world academic-scientific scenario. In addition, it is essential that Brazilian orthopaedic surgeons understand this reality and assist directly and effectively to change this scenario.

Resumo Objetivo Observar o perfil de autocitações da Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Rev Bras Ortop) e de citações deste periódico em outras revistas médicas de ortopedia de conteúdo geral ou específico de uma determinada área de conhecimento da especialidade. Métodos Trata-se de estudo observacional transversal da frequência de autocitações e citações da Rev Bras Ortop em outros cinco periódicos médicos de ortopedia de diferentes países, todas publicadas em língua inglesa. Foram analisados os 15 últimos artigos publicados em 2020 em cada uma das seis revistas estudadas. As referências usadas em cada um delas foi avaliada para identificação do periódico em que foram publicadas originalmente. A distribuição de frequência dos quatro principais periódicos citados, sua posição e o percentual relativo ao total de citações foram observados e registrados em cada uma das seis revistas. O número de vezes em que a Rev Bras Ortop foi citada em cada um dos periódicos estrangeiros selecionados foi avaliado por meio de suas frequências absoluta e relativa. Resultados O total de citações avaliadas neste estudo foi de 2527 (variando de 386 a 486 por revista). A Rev Bras Ortop apresentou baixa taxa de autocitação (2,6%), sendo citada na própria revista na sexta posição (10 de um total de 386 referências). No período estudado, a Rev Bras Ortop não foi citada em nenhum dos outros cinco periódicos médicos incluídos no estudo (frequência absoluta 0, frequência relativa 0). Conclusão Observou-se que a Rev Bras Ortop apresenta baixa referência de si própria, com taxa de autocitação de 2,6% no período estudado, mostrando que de fato o ortopedista brasileiro não cita o ortopedista brasileiro que publica na revista. Sugerimos a elaboração e a implementação de estratégias fortes de melhora da visibilidade do periódico no cenário acadêmico-científico mundial. Além disso, é fundamental que os ortopedistas brasileiros entendam esta realidade e auxiliem direta e efetivamente em sua mudança.

Evaluation of four molecular methods for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in pulmonary and blood samples from immunocompromised patients.

The present study analysed the concordance among four different molecular diagnostic methods for tuberculosis (TB) in pulmonary and blood samples from immunocompromised patients. A total of 165 blood and 194 sputum samples were collected from 181 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with upper respiratory complaints, regardless of suspicious for TB. The samples were submitted for smear microscopy, culture and molecular tests: a laboratory-developed conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and the Gen-Probe and Detect-TB Ampligenix kits. The samples were handled blindly by all the technicians involved, from sample processing to results analysis. For sputum, the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 96.7% for qPCR, 81.8% and 94.5% for Gen-Probe and 100% and 66.3% for Detect-TB, respectively. qPCR presented the best concordance with sputum culture [kappa (k) = 0.864)], followed by Gen-Probe (k = 0.682). For blood samples, qPCR showed 100% sensitivity and 92.3% specificity, with a substantial correlation with sputum culture (k = 0.754) and with the qPCR results obtained from sputum of the corresponding patient (k = 0.630). Conventional PCR demonstrated the worst results for sputa and blood, with a sensitivity of 100% vs. 88.9% and a specificity of 46.3% vs. 32%, respectively. Commercial or laboratory-developed molecular assays can overcome the difficulties in the diagnosis of TB in paucibacillary patients using conventional methods available in most laboratories.

Evaluation of four molecular methods for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in pulmonary and blood samples from immunocompromised patients

The present study analysed the concordance among four different molecular diagnostic methods for tuberculosis (TB) in pulmonary and blood samples from immunocompromised patients. A total of 165 blood and 194 sputum samples were collected from 181 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with upper respiratory complaints, regardless of suspicious for TB. The samples were submitted for smear microscopy, culture and molecular tests: a laboratory-developed conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and the Gen-Probe and Detect-TB Ampligenix kits. The samples were handled blindly by all the technicians involved, from sample processing to results analysis. For sputum, the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 96.7% for qPCR, 81.8% and 94.5% for Gen-Probe and 100% and 66.3% for Detect-TB, respectively. qPCR presented the best concordance with sputum culture [kappa (k) = 0.864)], followed by Gen-Probe (k = 0.682). For blood samples, qPCR showed 100% sensitivity and 92.3% specificity, with a substantial correlation with sputum culture (k = 0.754) and with the qPCR results obtained from sputum of the corresponding patient (k = 0.630). Conventional PCR demonstrated the worst results for sputa and blood, with a sensitivity of 100% vs. 88.9% and a specificity of 46.3% vs. 32%, respectively. Commercial or laboratory-developed molecular assays can overcome the difficulties in the diagnosis of TB in paucibacillary patients using conventional methods available in most laboratories.