Análisis bibliométrico de las revistas oficiales de sociedades de medicina interna en Europa / Bibliometric analysis of the official journals of internal medicine societies in Europe

Introducción La bibliometría evalúa la calidad de las revistas biomédicas. El objetivo de este estudio ha sido comparar los principales índices bibliométricos de las revistas oficiales de sociedades científicas de medicina interna en Europa. Material y métodos Se obtuvo información bibliométrica de las bases de datos Web of Science (WoS) y Scopus. Se analizaron tanto métricas de impacto (Journal Impact Factor [JIF], CiteScore) como normalizadas (Journal Citation Indicator [JCI], Normalized Eigenfactor, Source Normalized Impact per Paper [SNIP] y SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) de las revistas para el año 2022, y se observó su evolución en la última década. Resultados Se evaluaron 23 revistas oficiales de 33 sociedades científicas. Ocho revistas estaban incluidas en WoS y 11 en Scopus. Las revistas mejor posicionadas en 2022 fueron: 1) European Journal of Internal Medicine, que ocupó el primer cuartil (Q1) de las métricas JIF, CiteScore y JCI, superando valores de uno en las métricas Normalized Eigenfactor y SNIP; 2) Internal and Emergency Medicine, en Q1 para las métricas CiteScore y JCI, y con valores >1 en las métricas Normalized Eigenfactor y SNIP; 3) Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, con Q1 en la métrica JCI; 4) Revista Clínica Española, con Q2 para las métricas JIF, CiteScore y JCI; y 5) Acta Medica Belgica, con Q2 en las métricas CiteScore y JCI. Estas revistas incrementaron sus métricas de impacto en los últimos 3 años, coincidiendo con la pandemia COVID. Conclusiones Cinco revistas oficiales de sociedades europeas de medicina interna, entre ellas Revista Clínica Española, cumplen altos estándares de calidad. (AU)

Introduction Bibliometrics evaluates the quality of biomedical journals. The aim of this study has been to compare the main bibliometric indexes of the official journals of scientific societies of internal medicine in Europe. Material and methods Bibliometric information was obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Both impact metrics (Journal Impact Factor [JIF], CiteScore) and normalized metrics (Journal Citation Indicator [JCI], Normalized Eigenfactor, Source Normalized Impact per Paper [SNIP] and SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) of the journals for the year 2022 were analyzed, and their evolution over the last decade was described. Results Twenty-three official journals from 33 scientific societies were evaluated. Eight journals were included in WoS and 11 in Scopus. The best positioned journals in 2022 were: 1) European Journal of Internal Medicine, which ranked in the first quartile (Q1) for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics, exceeding values of 1 in Normalized Eigenfactor and SNIP metrics; 2) Internal and Emergency Medicine, with Q1 for CiteScore and JCI metrics, and with values >1 in Normalized Eigenfactor and SNIP metrics; 3) Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, with Q1 for JCI metrics; 4) Revista Clínica Española, with Q2 for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics; and 5) Acta Medica Belgica, Q2 for CiteScore and JCI metrics. These journals increased their impact metrics in the last 3 years, in parallel with the COVID pandemic. Conclusions Five official journals of European Internal Medicine societies, including Revista Clínica Española, meet high quality standards. (AU)

Bibliometric analysis of the official journals of internal medicine societies in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Bibliometrics evaluates the quality of biomedical journals. The aim of this study has been to compare the main bibliometric indexes of the official journals of scientific societies of Internal Medicine in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Bibliometric information was obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Both impact metrics (Journal Impact Factor [JIF], CiteScore) and normalized metrics (Journal Citation Indicator [JCI], Normalized Eigenfactor, Source Normalized Impact per Paper [SNIP] and SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) of the journals for the year 2022 were analyzed, and their evolution over the last decade was described. RESULTS: Twenty-three official journals from 33 scientific societies were evaluated. Eight journals were included in WoS and 11 in Scopus. The best positioned journals in 2022 were: 1) European Journal of Internal Medicine, which ranked in the first quartile (Q1) for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics, exceeding values of 1 in Normalized Eigenfactor and SNIP metrics; 2) Internal and Emergency Medicine, with Q1 for CiteScore and JCI metrics, and with values >1 in Normalized EigenFactor and SNIP metrics; 3) Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, with Q1 for JCI metrics; 4) Revista Clínica Española, with Q2 for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics; and 5) Acta Medica Belgica, with Q2 for CiteScore and JCI metrics. These journals increased their impact metrics in the last 3 years, in parallel with the COVID pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Five official journals of European Internal Medicine societies, including Revista Clínica Española, meet high quality standards.

Producción científica durante el período de residencia en España: comparación entre especialidades médicas con programas de 5años / Research productivity during residency training in Spain: Comparison among medical specialties lasting 5 years

Objetivos: Comparar la cantidad y calidad de las publicaciones realizadas durante el período de residencia de Cardiología, Medicina Intensiva, Medicina Interna y Oncología Médica en España.Métodos: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo de los médicos residentes de 4especialidades con 5años de duración (promoción 2014-2019). Se revisaron el número y el tipo de publicaciones indexadas en PubMed, el nombre de las revistas y sus índices bibliométricos (factor de impacto y cuartil), y la posición de autoría.Resultados: Los 649 residentes incluidos generaron 801 publicaciones (cociente o índice publicación/residente 1,23). Los residentes de Cardiología publicaron significativamente más (índice 2,57) y los de Medicina Intensiva menos (índice 0,42) que el resto de las especialidades (Medicina Interna, índice 1,06; Oncología Médica, índice 0,76; p<0,001). Globalmente, solo el 44,5% de los residentes participó en alguna publicación y el 27,6% en un artículo original; este último porcentaje se incrementó significativamente entre los cardiólogos (47,7%; p<0,001). Los tipos de publicación predominantes fueron los artículos originales (47,9%) y las notas clínicas (36,8%). La proporción de publicaciones en revistas de primer cuartil fue superior para los residentes de Cardiología (44,6% del total). Solo en un tercio de las publicaciones el residente fue primer o último firmante. La producción científica se relacionó con la especialidad, pero no con el sexo ni el tamaño del hospital donde se desarrolló la residencia.Conclusiones: Los residentes de Medicina Intensiva, Medicina Interna y Oncología Médica publican poco, mientras que la producción científica en Cardiología se puede considerar aceptable (AU)

Objectives: To compare the quantity and quality of publications during the residency training period in Cardiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology in Spain.Methods: A retrospective cohort study of residents from 4 specialties lasting 5 years (2014-2019). The number and type of publications indexed in PubMed, the names of the journals and their bibliometric indexes (impact factor and quartiles), and author's positions were evaluated.Results: The 649 residents included in the study generated 801 publications (publication/resident ratio 1.23). Cardiology residents published significantly more (ratio 2.57) and Intensive Care Medicine residents less (ratio 0.42) than the remaining specialties (Internal Medicine, ratio 1.06; Medical Oncology, ratio 0.76; p<.001). Overall, only 44.5% of residents participated in a publication, with 27.6% participating in an original article; this latter percentage increased significantly among cardiologists (47.7%; p<.001). The predominant types of publications were original articles (47.9%) and clinical reports (36.8%). The proportion of publications in first quartile journals was higher for Cardiology residents (44.6% of total). The resident was the first or last author in only one-third of the publications. Scientific productivity was related to specialty, but not to gender or the size of the hospital in which the residency training occurred.Conclusions: Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology residents publish insufficiently, while the scientific production from Cardiology residents could be considered acceptable (AU)

Research productivity during residency training in Spain: Comparison among medical specialties lasting 5 years.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the quantity and quality of publications during the residency training period in Cardiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology in Spain. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of residents from 4 specialties lasting 5 years (2014-2019). The number and type of publications indexed in PubMed®, the names of the journals and their bibliometric indexes (impact factor and quartiles), and author's positions were evaluated. RESULTS: The 649 residents included in the study generated 801 publications (publication/resident ratio 1.23). Cardiology residents published significantly more (ratio 2.57) and Intensive Care Medicine residents less (ratio 0.42) than the remaining specialties (Internal Medicine, ratio 1.06; Medical Oncology, ratio 0.76; p < .001). Overall, only 44.5% of residents participated in a publication, with 27.6% participating in an original article; this latter percentage increased significantly among cardiologists (47.7%; p < .001). The predominant types of publications were original articles (47.9%) and clinical reports (36.8%). The proportion of publications in first quartile journals was higher for Cardiology residents (44.6% of total). The resident was the first or last author in only one-third of the publications. Scientific productivity was related to specialty, but not to gender or the size of the hospital in which the residency training occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology residents publish insufficiently, while the scientific production from Cardiology residents could be considered acceptable.

FluoroType® MTB in pleural fluid for diagnosing tuberculosis.

OBJECTIVES: This work aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of a nucleic acid amplification test (FluoroType MTB®) in pleural fluid (PF) and sputum to diagnose tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE). We also analyzed the increase in diagnostic accuracy of a second FluoroType MTB® test on a second thoracentesis sample when the first was negative. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-center study that included 207 patients with pleural effusion (31 tuberculous and 176 due to other causes). Of the 31 cases of TPE, 21 (68%) were confirmed histologically or microbiologically; the other cases were considered probable. RESULTS: The operational characteristics of FluoroType MTB® in PF for identifying tuberculosis were a sensitivity of 13%, a specificity of 99%, a positive likelihood ratio of 11, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.9. The diagnostic efficacy data for sputum samples were 21%, 91%, 2.4, and 0.9, respectively. PF and sputum cultures in solid and liquid media had greater sensitivity (36% and 31%, respectively). A second FluoroType MTB® test in PF was negative for 24 patients who had TPE and for whom the first FluoroType MTB® test was also negative. Only two (6.5%) patients with TPE had a confirmed diagnosis based exclusively on the positive results of the FluoroType MTB® in PF. CONCLUSION: Due to its low sensitivity, the FluoroType MTB® test in PF has a limited role in diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy.

FluoroType® MTB en líquido pleural para el diagnóstico de tuberculosis / FluoroType® MTB in pleural fluid for diagnosing tuberculosis

Objetivos This work aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of a nucleic acid amplification test (FluoroType MTB®) in pleural fluid (PF) and sputum to diagnose tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE). We also analyzed the increase in diagnostic accuracy of a second FluoroType MTB® test on a second thoracentesis sample when the first was negative. Métodos We conducted a prospective single-center study that included 207 patients with pleural effusion (31 tuberculous and 176 due to other causes). Of the 31 cases of TPE, 21 (68%) were confirmed histologically or microbiologically; the other cases were considered probable. Resultados The operational characteristics of FluoroType MTB® in PF for identifying tuberculosis were a sensitivity of 13%, a specificity of 99%, a positive likelihood ratio of 11, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.9. The diagnostic efficacy data for sputum samples were 21%, 91%, 2.4, and 0.9, respectively. PF and sputum cultures in solid and liquid media had greater sensitivity (36% and 31%, respectively). A second FluoroType MTB® test in PF was negative for 24 patients who had TPE and for whom the first FluoroType MTB® test was also negative. Only two (6.5%) patients with TPE had a confirmed diagnosis based exclusively on the positive results of the FluoroType MTB® in PF. Conclusión Due to its low sensitivity, the FluoroType MTB® test in PF has a limited role in diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy (AU)

FluoroType® MTB in pleural fluid for diagnosing tuberculosis. / FluoroType® MTB en líquido pleural para el diagnóstico de tuberculosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a nucleic acid amplification test (FluoroType MTB®) in pleural fluid (PF) and sputum to diagnose tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE). We also analysed the increase in diagnostic yield of a second FluoroType MTB® test, obtained through a new thoracentesis, when the first had resulted negative. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-centre study that included 207 patients with pleural effusion (31 tuberculous and 176 from other causes). Of the 31 cases of TPE, 21 (68%) were confirmed histologically or microbiologically; the other cases were considered probable. RESULTS: The operational characteristics of FluoroType MTB® in PF for identifying tuberculosis were a sensitivity of 13%, a specificity of 99%, a positive likelihood ratio of 11 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.9. The diagnostic efficacy data for sputum samples was 21%, 91%, 2.4 and 0.9, respectively. The PF and sputum cultures in solid and liquid media had greater sensitivity (36% and 31%, respectively). A second FluoroType MTB® test in PF was negative for 24 patients with TPE, and a first FluoroType MTB® test also negative. Only 2 (6.5%) patients with TPE had a confirmed diagnosis based exclusively on the positive results of the FluoroType MTB® in PF. CONCLUSION: Due to its low sensitivity, the FluoroType MTB® test in PF has a limited role in diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy.

Persistent benign pleural effusion. / Derrames pleurales benignos persistentes.

In this narrative review we describe the main aetiologies, clinical characteristics and treatment for patients with benign pleural effusion that characteristically persists over time: chylothorax and cholesterol effusions, nonexpansible lung, rheumatoid pleural effusion, tuberculous empyema, benign asbestos pleural effusion and yellow nail syndrome.

The case against performing pleural biopsies for the aetiological diagnosis of exudates. / ¿Se debe realizar una biopsia pleural para el diagnóstico etiológico de los exudados? No.

In most cases, the etiological diagnosis of pleural exudates does not require a pleural biopsy. However, when it is considered necessary, the biopsy should seldom be conducted using invasive methods such as thoracoscopy. Two paradigmatic examples are pleural tuberculosis and malignant effusions. In many centres, pleural fluid adenosine deaminase measurement has replaced closed pleural biopsies in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Similarly, pathological and molecular studies on pleural fluid cell blocks or alternatively, image-guided pleural biopsies have drastically reduced the need for thoracoscopy.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert® MTB/RIF cycle threshold level to predict smear positivity: a meta-analysis.

SETTING: Xpert® MTB/RIF is the most widely used molecular assay for rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). The number of polymerase chain reaction cycles after which detectable product is generated (cycle threshold value, CT) correlates with the bacillary burden.OBJECTIVE To investigate the association between Xpert CT values and smear status through a systematic review and individual-level data meta-analysis. DESIGN: Studies on the association between CT values and smear status were included in a descriptive systematic review. Authors of studies including smear, culture and Xpert results were asked for individual-level data, and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated. RESULTS: Of 918 citations, 10 were included in the descriptive systematic review. Fifteen data sets from studies potentially relevant for individual-level data meta-analysis provided individual-level data (7511 samples from 4447 patients); 1212 patients had positive Xpert results for at least one respiratory sample (1859 samples overall). ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95%CI 0.82-0.87). Cut-off CT values of 27.7 and 31.8 yielded sensitivities of 85% (95%CI 83-87) and 95% (95%CI 94-96) and specificities of 67% (95%CI 66-77) and 35% (95%CI 30-41) for smear-positive samples. CONCLUSION: Xpert CT values and smear status were strongly associated. However, diagnostic accuracy at set cut-off CT values of 27.7 or 31.8 would not replace smear microscopy. How CT values compare with smear microscopy in predicting infectiousness remains to be seen.

Examination of cytological smears and cell blocks of pleural fluid: Complementary diagnostic value for malignant effusions.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the independent usefulness of pleural fluid smear and cell block (CB) preparations for the diagnosis of malignant effusions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 632 cytological smears and 554 CBs from 414 consecutive patients with malignant effusions were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The diagnostic yield of a first specimen was 44% regardless of whether a smear or CB cytologic examination was performed. The use of subsequent separated specimens increased the identification of malignancy to 56%. Overall, 11% of samples found to be negative by cytologic smears showed malignant cells on CBs, whereas 15% of negative CBs were reported as positive on smear slides. Pleural fluid specimens with low red and/or white blood cell counts more frequently resulted in the generation of suboptimal CB preparations. CONCLUSIONS: If CBs and smears are prepared and examined, the percentage of positive diagnoses will be greater than if only one method is used.