Trends in publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terminology (2013-2022).

AIMS: This article explored the publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terminology to determine usage and discuss options for low usage terms. BACKGROUND: A plethora of terms describe the scholarship of evidence-based healthcare. Several terms are synonyms, creating redundancy and confusion. The abundance and overlap of terms may impede the discovery of evidence. DESIGN: This discursive article explored and discussed publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terms. METHODS: Evidence-based healthcare terms were identified, and their 10-year (2013-2022) publication impact was assessed in the CINAHL and Medline databases. A card sort method was also used to identify terms with low usage. RESULTS: A total of 18/32 terms were included in the review. The terms evidence-based practice, quality improvement, research and translational research were the most highly published terms. Publication data were presented yearly over a 10-year period. Most terms increased in publication use over time, except for three terms whose use decreased. Several terms related to translational research have multiple synonyms. It remains unknown whether these terms are interchangeable and possibly redundant, or if there are nuanced differences between terms. CONCLUSION: We suggest a follow-up review in 3-5 years to identify publication trends to assess context and terms with continued low publication usage. Terms with persistent low usage should be considered for retirement in the reporting of scholarly activities. Additionally, terms with increasing publication trends should be treated as emerging terms that contribute to evidence-based healthcare terminology. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Confusion about the use of appropriate terminology may hinder progress in the scholarship of evidence-based healthcare. We encourage scholars to be aware of publication impact as it relates to the use of specific terminology and be purposeful in the selection of terms used in scholarly projects and publications.

Scholarly activity following National Institutes of Health Women's Reproductive Health Research K12 training-a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: National Institutes of Health funding to address basic reproductive health for common female conditions remains disproportionately low, in part because of low success rates of grant applications by obstetrician-gynecologists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the scholarly productivity of individuals supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women's Reproductive Health Research K12 career development award, created to advance careers of obstetrician-gynecologist physician-scientists. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cohort study of individuals who completed at least 2 years of Women's Reproductive Health Research training by June 30, 2015, and had at least 5-year follow-up. Earliest training start date was December 1, 1998. Primary outcomes from public data sources (National Institutes of Health RePORTER, PubMed, iCite) were (1) number of total and R01 National Institutes of Health grants as principal investigator; (2) numbers of total and first and last author publications; and (3) median and highest publication impact factor measured by the relative citation ratio. Secondary outcomes from an email survey subcohort were total number of research grants, federally funded grants, and number of National Institutes of Health grants as coinvestigator; institutional promotions and academic appointments, national and National Institutes of Health leadership roles; and career and mentorship satisfaction. Outcomes were recorded at 5, 10, and 15 years postgraduation, and aggregate anonymized data were divided into 3 groups using Women's Reproductive Health Research completion dates: June 30 of 2005, 2010, and 2015. Temporal trends were assessed. Results were stratified by gender, number of awarded grant cycles (1-2 vs 3-4), and specialty type. Analyses used Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests, and Mantel-Haenszel tests of trend. RESULTS: The distribution of the cohort (N=178) by graduation completion date was: on or before June 30, 2005 (57 [32%]); July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 (60 [34%]); and July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015 (61 [34%]). Most participants were female (112 [64%]) and maternal-fetal medicine trained (53 [30%]), followed by no fellowship (50 [28%]). Of the 178 participants, 72 (40%) received additional National Institutes of Health funding as a principal investigator, 45 (25%) received at least 1 R01, and 23 (13%) received 2 to 5 R01s. There were 52 (31%) scholars with >10 first author publications, 66 (39%) with >10 last author publications, and 108 (63%) with ≥25 publications. The highest relative citation ratio was a median of 8.07 (interquartile range, 4.20-15.16). There were 121 (71%) scholars with relative citation ratio ≥5, indicating >5-fold greater publication impact than that of other National Institutes of Health-funded scientists in similar areas of research. No differences by gender, institution, or temporal trends were observed. Of the full cohort, 69 (45.7%) responded to the survey; most self-identified as women (50 [73%]) and White (51 [74%]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the infrastructure provided by an institutional K award is an advantageous career development award mechanism for obstetrician-gynecologists, a group of predominantly women surgeons. It may serve as a corrective for the known inequities in National Institutes of Health funding by gender.

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-Supported Relative Citation Ratio Among Fellowship-Trained American Orthopaedic Joint Reconstruction Surgery Faculty: A New Bibliometric Measure of Scientific Influence.

BACKGROUND: The relative citation ratio (RCR), a novel National Institutes of Health-Supported measure of research productivity, allows for accurate interdisciplinary comparison of publication influence. This study evaluates the RCR of fellowship-trained adult reconstructive orthopaedic surgeons with the goal of analyzing potentially influential physician demographics. METHODS: Adult Reconstruction Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellowship-trained faculty for orthopaedic residency programs were identified via departmental websites. The National Institutes of Health's iCite database was retrospectively reviewed for mean RCR, weighted RCR, and publication count by surgeon. Multivariate analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and analyses of variance testing to compare sex, career length, academic rank, and professional degrees in addition to an MD or DO. Significance was considered P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 488 fellowship-trained adult reconstruction faculty from 144 programs were included in the analysis. Overall, the faculty recorded a median RCR of 1.65 (interquartile range: 1.01-2.28) and a median weighted RCR of 16.59 (interquartile range: 3.98-61.92). The weighted RCR and total number of publications were associated with academic rank and career longevity, while the mean RCR was associated with academic rank. The median RCR ranged from 1.12 to 1.87 for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Adult reconstruction faculty are exceptionally productive and generate highly impactful studies as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the National Institutes of Health standard value of 1.0. Our data have important implications in the assessment of grant outcomes, promotion, and continued evaluation of research influence within the hip and knee community.

Is rapid scientific publication also high quality? Bibliometric analysis of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers.

The impact of COVID-19 has underlined the need for reliable information to guide clinical practice and policy. This urgency has to be balanced against disruption to journal handling capacity and the continued need to ensure scientific rigour. We examined the reporting quality of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers using a bibliometric analysis examining reporting quality and risk of bias (RoB) amongst 250 top scoring Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) COVID-19 research papers between January and April 2020. Method-specific RoB tools were used to assess quality. After exclusions, 84 studies from 44 journals were included. Forty-three (51%) were case series/studies, and only one was an randomized controlled trial. Most authors were from institutions based in China (n = 44, 52%). The median AAS and impact factor was 2015 (interquartile range [IQR] 1,105-4,051.5) and 12.8 (IQR 5-44.2) respectively. Nine studies (11%) utilized a formal reporting framework, 62 (74%) included a funding statement, and 41 (49%) were at high RoB. This review of the most widely disseminated COVID-19 studies highlights a preponderance of low-quality case series with few research papers adhering to good standards of reporting. It emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of research and the increasingly vital responsibility that journals have in ensuring high-quality publications.

Impacto y calidad de la productividad académica de los investigadores en Colombia en neurociencia comportamental utilizando modelos animales / Impact and quality of academic production of Colombian researchers in Behavioral Neuroscience using animal models

La productividad científica colombiana es limitada considerando indicadores como el número de artículos publicados en revistas de alto impacto y el índice h. La ausencia de una línea de base y de metodologías de comparación de productividad dificulta trazar las expectativas de publicación provenientes de las instancias nacionales. El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar de manera comparativa aspectos relacionados con el impacto y la calidad de la productividad académica de los investigadores en neurociencia comportamental utilizando modelos animales en Colombia. Esto se hizo por medio de la descripción de la población total de investigadores activos en Colombia y la definición de una muestra comparativa de investigadores internacionales. Luego se determinaron en Scopus las métricas asociadas con producción de artículos científicos para cada investigador. Finalmente, se identificó el cuartil de las revistas en las que publicaron los investigadores para un subconjunto de artículos en el Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR; Scimago Lab). Se encontró que aunque los investigadores en Colombia presentan una tasa importante de publicación (0.9 artículos por año), cuando se hace un análisis comparativo están rezagados en todos los aspectos de productividad con relación a investigadores internacionales. Se espera que la metodología propuesta pueda extenderse a la evaluación del impacto y calidad de la productividad en temáticas específicas de otras áreas de investigación.

High-impact academic research productivity in Colombia is limited. The absence of baselines and methodologies for meaningful comparisons with other countries complicates productivity projections from academic institutions. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the impact and quality of the academic productivity of researchers working on behavioral neuroscience using animal models in Colombia. The total population of active researchers in Colombia was described, and a comparative international sample of researchers was determined. Subsequently, for each researcher, we analyzed metrics associated to scientific productivity using Scopus and the journal position in Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR; Scimago Lab) of a sample of published articles. We report that, although there is an important rate of productivity for researchers in Colombia (0.9 articles per year), all aspects related to productivity were notably lower when compared to a sample of international researchers. Analyses of academic productivity in other scientific areas in Colombia may be enriched by the proposed methodology.