COVID-19 and diabetes: Analysis of the scientific production indexed in Scopus.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: COVID-19 has affected the world population, with a higher impact among at-risk groups, such as diabetic patients. This has led to an exponential increase in the number of studies related to the subject, although their bibliometric characteristics are unknown. This article aims to characterize the world scientific production on COVID-19 and diabetes indexed in Scopus. METHODS: Articles on the subject were retrieved using a search strategy and bibliometric indicators of production, visibility, collaboration and impact were studied. RESULTS: The total scientific production was 1956 documents, which have 35086 citations and an h-index of 67. Articles published in Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews (n = 127), as well as those by researchers from the United States (n = 498) predominated. Articles by Chinese authors (n = 314) had the highest impact according to the received citations (n = 21757). India, China and Spain are leading countries in terms of the research in which they participate. There is extensive international scientific collaboration led by China, the United States and Italy. CONCLUSION: The volume of publications on COVID-19 and diabetes and their scientific impact show the incentive that the study of these diseases represents for the scientific community worldwide.

Statistical Inference in Abstracts Published in Cardiovascular Journals.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the American Statistical Association stated that the use of statistical significance leads to distortion of the scientific process. The principal alternative to significance or null hypothesis testing (NHT) is estimation with point estimates and confidence intervals (CIs). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the time trend of statistical inference and statistical reporting style in abstracts in major cardiovascular journals. METHODS: A total of 84,250 abstracts published from 1975 to 2019 in 9 high-ranking cardiovascular journals (Circulation, Circulation Research, European Heart Journal, European Heart Journal: Cardiovascular Imaging, European Journal of Heart Failure, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, and JAMA Cardiology) were reviewed; in particular, proportions of abstracts containing statistical inference and its major variants (NHT, significance testing) were compared over time and among journals. RESULTS: Overall, 49,924 abstracts (59%) contained statistical inference. Among these abstracts, NHT was the most frequent reporting style of statistical inference (79% among all journals). Journals differed considerably in the prevalence of CI reporting (1% to 78% in 2017-2019). With the exception of 2 journals, the proportion of abstracts containing CIs was higher in the more recent period. From 2013-2015 to 2017-2019, the proportion of abstracts containing only CIs increased by 5 (95% CI: 0 to 10), 18 (95% CI: 15 to 21), and 9 (95% CI: 3 to 15) percentage points in the European Heart Journal, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: NHT is still the prevailing reporting style of statistical inference in major cardiovascular journals. Reporting of CIs in abstracts of major cardiovascular journals appears to be growing more popular.

Natural language processing was effective in assisting rapid title and abstract screening when updating systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the use of natural language processing (NLP) technology is effective in assisting rapid title and abstract screening when updating a systematic review. STUDY DESIGN: Using the searched literature from a published systematic review, we trained and tested an NLP model that enables rapid title and abstract screening when updating a systematic review. The model was a light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), an ensemble learning classifier which integrates four pretrained Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) models. We divided the searched citations into two sets (ie, training and test sets). The model was trained using the training set and assessed for screening performance using the test set. The searched citations, whose eligibility was determined by two independent reviewers, were treated as the reference standard. RESULTS: The test set included 947 citations; our model included 340 citations, excluded 607 citations, and achieved 96% sensitivity, and 78% specificity. If the classifier assessment in the case study was accepted, reviewers would lose 8 of 180 eligible citations (4%), none of which were ultimately included in the systematic review after full-text consideration, while decreasing the workload by 64.1%. CONCLUSION: NLP technology using the ensemble learning method may effectively assist in rapid literature screening when updating systematic reviews.

Scientific publications in cancer: in Latin America, strong scientific networks increase productivity (the TENJIN study).

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to evaluate the relationship between authorship networking, socioeconomic factors, and scientific productivity across Latin America. METHODS: In a bibliometric analysis of cancer-related Latin-American publications, the relationship between authorship network indicators, sociodemographic factors, and number of peer-reviewed indexed publications per country was explored. A systematic review of the literature for cancer publications between 2000 and 2018 using the Scopus database limited to Latin-American authors was used for the construction of coauthorship and publication networks and their respective metrics. Sociodemographic variables including percentage of invested gross domestic product in research, population, and cancer incidence were also estimated. Multiple linear regression models were constructed to determine the relationship between productivity and the aforementioned variables. RESULTS: A total of 8,528 articles across nine countries were included. Brazil was the most productive nation with 41.8% of identified references followed by Mexico (16.6%) and Argentina (12.9%). Latin America experienced a 9% growth in number of publications across the studied time frame. After analyzing networking and sociodemographic variables, number of authors in a collaboration network and percentage of invested gross domestic product were associated with high productivity yielding a multiple regression model with an R2 value of 0.983. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that extensive authorship networking and a high investment in research strongly predict cancer-related productivity.

Handsearching had best recall but poor efficiency when exporting to a bibliographic tool: case study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of methods used to identify and export conference abstracts into a bibliographic management tool. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a case study. The effectiveness and efficiency of methods to identify and export conference abstracts presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference 2016-2018 for a systematic review were evaluated. A reference standard handsearch of conference proceedings was compared with: 1) contacting Blood (the journal that report ASH proceedings); 2) keyword searching; 3) searching Embase; 4) searching MEDLINE via EndNote; and 5) searching CPCI-S. Effectiveness was determined by the number of abstracts identified compared with the reference standard, whereas efficiency was a comparison between the resources required to identify and export conference abstracts compared with the reference standard. RESULTS: Six hundred and four potentially eligible and 15 confirmed eligible conference abstracts (abstracts included in the review) were identified by the handsearch. Comparator 2 was the only method to identify all abstracts and it was more efficient than the reference standard. Comparators 1 and 3-5 missed a number of eligible abstracts. CONCLUSION: This study raises potentially concerning questions about searching for conferences' abstracts by methods other than directly searching the original conference proceedings. Efficiency of exporting would be improved if journals permitted bulk downloads.

Análisis de homologías y heterogeneidad entre congresos de Reumatología: mexicanos, ACR y EULAR / Homologies and heterogeneity between Rheumatology Congresses: Mexican, American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism

INTRODUCCIÓN: Los congresos médicos representan una herramienta que favorece la actualización permanente del médico; su calidad es obligación de los colegios e instituciones. OBJETIVO: Evaluar el contenido académico de 4 congresos internacionales de Reumatología. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se utilizó como fuente de información los resúmenes publicados en los suplementos de la revista Reumatología Clínica, SE1 Vol. 12 del mes de febrero de 2016, el suplemento SE 1 Vol. 13 del mes de febrero de 2017, la aplicación para medios electrónicos del ACR/ARHP 2016 del Congreso Americano de Reumatología 2016 dedicado a los trabajos presentados en el XLIV Congreso Mexicano de Reumatología (CMR 44), XLV Congreso Mexicano de Reumatología (CMR 45) y del 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting (ACR 2016), y la página electrónica de archivos y resúmenes de EULAR 2017, respectivamente; de cada trabajo se obtuvo información referente a la principal patología referida, el tipo de información contenida y el tipo de trabajo. Cabe resaltar que algunos eran patologías o diseños combinados de los cuales se seleccionó el que a nuestro juicio era el más importante. RESULTADOS: Se presentaron 275, 340, 3275 y 4129 estudios en el CMR 44, CMR 45, ACR 2016, EULAR 2017, respectivamente. La artritis reumatoide fue la patología con mayor número de trabajos con 23, 26, 21 y 27% en el CMR 44, CMR 45 y ACR 2016 y EULAR 2017 respectivamente, seguida por informes sobre lupus eritematoso sistémico; en tercer lugar, en los congresos mexicanos destacan reportes sobre vasculitis, mientras en los congresos internacionales lo ocupan las espondiloartropatías. De resaltar que en el caso de artritis reumatoide los tópicos sobre clínica representan alrededor del 30% en los congresos mexicanos y ACR, y casi el 20% en EULAR. Los estudios observacionales representaron el 40% en los congresos mexicanos vs. 33% en el ACR 2016 y 55% en EULAR 2017, por otro lado, los estudios sobre ciencia básica fueron mínimos en los congresos mexicanos mientras que en ACR 2016 representan el 21% y en EULAR 12%. CONCLUSIONES: Los congresos de Reumatología constituyen fuente adecuada para la obtención de conocimientos basados en evidencia. Para estudios mexicanos requerimos de fomentar el esfuerzo de colaboración entre instituciones, que reditúen en mayor número de estudios controlados, ensayos clínicos y estudios básicos que apuntalen la calidad del congreso. Se debe hacer conciencia que hace falta mayor difusión del resto de enfermedades del aparato locomotor, y no solo las patologías autoinmunes, ya que las primeras constituyen un porcentaje importante de la práctica diaria

BACKGROUND: Medical meetings are a tool to help physicians advance and update their medical knowledge. Their quality is the responsibility of colleges and institutions. OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the academic level of four different annual rheumatology meetings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: As a source of information, we used the abstracts published in the supplements of the journal Reumatología Clínica, SE1 Vol. 12, issued in February 2016, SE 1 Vol. 13 issued in February 2017, the electronic application of the 2016 ACR/ARHP of the 2016 American Congress of Rheumatology, devoted to the works presented at the 44th Mexican Congress of Rheumatology (CMR 44), the 45th Mexican Congress of Rheumatology (CMR 45), and the 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting (ACR 2016), as well as the Web page on the files and abstracts of EULAR 2017, respectively; from each work we compiled information on the major disease being referred to, the type of information provided and the type of report. We should point out that some were combined conditions or designs, from which we selected that which we considered to be the most important. RESULTS: In all, 275, 340, 3275 and 4129 studies were submitted to the XLIV Mexican Congress of Rheumatology, XLV Mexican Congress of Rheumatology, the 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting and EULAR 2017, respectively. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most common disorder, dealt with in 23%, 26%, 21% and 27% in CMR 44, CMR 45, 2016 ACR and EULAR 2017, respectively, followed by systemic lupus erythematosus; in third place, Mexican congresses reported trials related to systemic vasculitis, whereas spondylitis was the main subject of international congresses. In the case of rheumatoid arthritis, clinical topics accounted for 30% in the Mexican congresses and ACR, and nearly 20% in EULAR. Observational studies accounted for 40% in the Mexican congresses vs. 33% in 2016 ACR and 55% in EULAR 2017. Studies on basic science were minimal in the Mexican congress, whereas in 2016 ACR, they represented 21% and 12% in EULAR 2017. CONCLUSION: Rheumatology meetings constitute a tool to obtain adequate evidence-based medical knowledge in this important branch of medicine. For our Mexican Congress, we should encourage collaborative efforts between institutions, which will result in a greater number of controlled studies, clinical trials and basic studies that support the quality of the congress. We wish to emphasize that a greater diffusion of other musculoskeletal diseases is needed, not only autoimmune diseases, since the former represent an important percentage of the daily practice

National Cancer Institute scientific production scientometric analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Scientometrics analyzes scientific publications through bibliometric and computational techniques, whereby productivity and impact indicators are generated. OBJECTIVE: To propose a multidimensional methodology in order to obtain the scientometric profile of the National Cancer Institute (INCan), Mexico, and rank it with regard to other national health institutions. METHOD: Using the LabSOM software and the ViBlioSOM methodology based on artificial neural networks, the INCan scientific production indexed in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2017 was analyzed. The multidimensional scientometric profile of the Institute was obtained and compared with that of other national health institutions. RESULTS: In terms of productivity, INCan ranks fourth among the 10 Mexican public health institutions indexed in the Web of Science; in the normalized impact ranking, it ranks sixth. Although out of 1323 articles 683 (51.62 %) did not receive citations, 11 articles classified as excellent (0.83 %) obtained 24 % of 11,932 citations and, consequently, INCan normalized impact rate showed a mean productivity higher than the world mean. CONCLUSION: Multidimensional analysis with the proposed neural network enables obtaining a more reliable and comprehensive absolute and relative institutional scientiometric profile than that derived from measuring isolated variables.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La cienciometría permite analizar la productividad e impacto de las publicaciones científicas mediante técnicas bibliométricas y computacionales. OBJETIVO: Proponer una metodología multidimensional para obtener el perfil cienciométrico del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (INCan), México, y compararlo respecto a otras instituciones nacionales de salud. MÉTODO: Con el programa LabSOM y la metodología ViBlioSOM, basada en redes neuronales artificiales, se analizó la producción científica del INCan indexada en la Web of Science entre 2007 y 2017. Se obtuvo el perfil cienciométrico multidimensional del Instituto y se comparó con el de otras instituciones nacionales de salud. RESULTADOS: En productividad, el INCan ocupa el cuarto lugar de las 10 instituciones mexicanas de salud pública indexadas en la Web of Science.; en el ranking de impacto normalizado, el sexto lugar. Aun cuando de 1323 artículos, 683 (51.62 %) no recibieron citas, 11 artículos de excelencia (0.83 %) lograron 24 % de 11 932 citas y, consecuentemente, el impacto normalizado del INCan evidenció una productividad media por arriba de la media mundial. CONCLUSIÓN: El análisis multidimensional con la red neuronal propuesta permite obtener un perfil cienciométrico institucional absoluto y relativo más fidedigno e integral que el derivado de conteos de variables aisladas.

A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time and resource intensive, requiring approximately 1 year from protocol registration to submission for publication. Our aim was to describe the process, facilitators, and barriers to completing the first 2-week full SR. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact of increased fluid intake, on urinary tract infection (UTI) recurrence, in individuals at risk for UTIs. The review was conducted by experienced systematic reviewers with complementary skills (two researcher clinicians, an information specialist, and an epidemiologist), using Systematic Review Automation tools, and blocked off time for the duration of the project. The outcomes were time to complete the SR, time to complete individual SR tasks, facilitators and barriers to progress, and peer reviewer feedback on the SR manuscript. Times to completion were analyzed quantitatively (minutes and calendar days); facilitators and barriers were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework; and peer reviewer feedback was analyzed quantitatively and narratively. RESULTS: The SR was completed in 61 person-hours (9 workdays; 12 calendar days); accepted version of the manuscript required 71 person-hours. Individual SR tasks ranged from 16 person-minutes (deduplication of search results) to 461 person-minutes (data extraction). The least time-consuming SR tasks were obtaining full-texts, searches, citation analysis, data synthesis, and deduplication. The most time-consuming tasks were data extraction, write-up, abstract screening, full-text screening, and risk of bias. Facilitators and barriers mapped onto the following domains: knowledge; skills; memory, attention, and decision process; environmental context and resources; and technology and infrastructure. Two sets of peer reviewer feedback were received on the manuscript: the first included 34 comments requesting changes, 17 changes were made, requiring 173 person-minutes; the second requested 13 changes, and eight were made, requiring 121 person-minutes. CONCLUSION: A small and experienced systematic reviewer team using Systematic Review Automation tools who have protected time to focus solely on the SR can complete a moderately sized SR in 2 weeks.

Análisis cienciométrico de la producción científica del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología / National Cancer Institute scientific production scientometric analysis

Resumen Introducción: La cienciometría permite analizar la productividad e impacto de las publicaciones científicas mediante técnicas bibliométricas y computacionales. Objetivo: Proponer una metodología multidimensional para obtener el perfil cienciométrico del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (INCan), México, y compararlo respecto a otras instituciones nacionales de salud. Método: Con el programa LabSOM y la metodología ViBlioSOM, basada en redes neuronales artificiales, se analizó la producción científica del INCan indexada en la Web of Science entre 2007 y 2017. Se obtuvo el perfil cienciométrico multidimensional del Instituto y se comparó con el de otras instituciones nacionales de salud. Resultados: En productividad, el INCan ocupa el cuarto lugar de las 10 instituciones mexicanas de salud pública indexadas en la Web of Science.; en el ranking de impacto normalizado, el sexto lugar. Aun cuando de 1323 artículos, 683 (51.62 %) no recibieron citas, 11 artículos de excelencia (0.83 %) lograron 24 % de 11 932 citas y, consecuentemente, el impacto normalizado del INCan evidenció una productividad media por arriba de la media mundial. Conclusión: El análisis multidimensional con la red neuronal propuesta permite obtener un perfil cienciométrico institucional absoluto y relativo más fidedigno e integral que el derivado de conteos de variables aisladas.

Abstract Introduction: Scientometrics analyzes scientific publications through bibliometric and computational techniques, whereby productivity and impact indicators are generated. Objective: To propose a multidimensional methodology in order to obtain the scientometric profile of the National Cancer Institute (INCan), Mexico, and rank it with regard to other national health institutions. Method: Using the LabSOM software and the ViBlioSOM methodology based on artificial neural networks, the INCan scientific production indexed in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2017 was analyzed. The multidimensional scientometric profile of the Institute was obtained and compared with that of other national health institutions. Results: In terms of productivity, INCan ranks fourth among the 10 Mexican public health institutions indexed in the Web of Science; in the normalized impact ranking, it ranks sixth. Although out of 1323 articles 683 (51.62 %) did not receive citations, 11 articles classified as excellent (0.83 %) obtained 24 % of 11,932 citations and, consequently, INCan normalized impact rate showed a mean productivity higher than the world mean. Conclusion: Multidimensional analysis with the proposed neural network enables obtaining a more reliable and comprehensive absolute and relative institutional scientiometric profile than that derived from measuring isolated variables.

Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of single-reviewer screening in correctly classifying abstracts as relevant or irrelevant for literature reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a crowd-based, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Using the Cochrane Crowd platform, we randomly assigned eligible participants to 100 abstracts each of a pharmacological or a public health topic. After completing a training exercise, participants screened abstracts online based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We calculated sensitivities and specificities of single- and dual-reviewer screening using two published systematic reviews as reference standards. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty participants made 24,942 screening decisions on 2,000 randomly selected abstracts from the reference standard reviews. On average, each abstract was screened 12 times. Overall, single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13% of relevant studies (sensitivity: 86.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80.6%-91.2%). By comparison, dual-reviewer abstract screening missed 3% of relevant studies (sensitivity: 97.5%; 95% CI, 95.1%-98.8%). The corresponding specificities were 79.2% (95% CI, 77.4%-80.9%) and 68.7% (95% CI, 66.4%-71.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Single-reviewer abstract screening does not appear to fulfill the high methodological standards that decisionmakers expect from systematic reviews. It may be a viable option for rapid reviews, which deliberately lower methodological standards to provide decision makers with accelerated evidence synthesis products.

A bibliometric study of research pertaining to the oldest-old (age eighty-five and older).

OBJECTIVE: This bibliometric study investigated literature pertaining to a quickly growing population worldwide: the oldest-old, individuals age eighty-five and older. The current state of research was surveyed, based on top authors, publishers, authorship networks, themes in publication titles and abstracts, and highly cited publications. METHODS: Bibliographic data was abstracted from the Web of Science database. Microsoft Excel was used for data analyses related to top author, publishers, and terms. VosViewer bibliographic visualization software was used to identify authorship networks. RESULTS: Publications pertaining to the oldest-old have increased dramatically over the past three decades. The majority of these publications are related to medical or genetics topics. Citations for these publications remain relatively low but may be expected to grow in coming years, based on the publication behavior about and increasing prominence of this population. Claudio Franceschi and the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society were found to be the author and journal with the most publications pertaining to the oldest-old, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The oldest-old is a population of rapidly growing significance. Researchers in library and information science, gerontology, and beyond can benefit themselves and those they serve by participating in research and specialized services to marginalized populations like the oldest-old. This bibliometric study hopefully serves as a launch-point for further inquiry and research in the years to come.

Overviews of reviews incompletely report methods for handling overlapping, discordant, and problematic data.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of reporting of methods in overviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Assessment of the adequacy of reporting of methods in a random sample of 50 overviews was based on a published framework of methods for conducting overviews. Descriptive summary statistics were presented. RESULTS: We screened 848 randomly selected abstracts to obtain the required 50 overviews. Overviews included a median of 13 (interquartile range 7-32) systematic reviews (SRs), 22% reported working from a protocol, 36% reported using reporting standards (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and 34% reported using methodological guidance (e.g., Cochrane Handbook). Methods common to both overviews and SRs of primary studies were reported in majority of overviews (e.g., 56% framed the overview question by Population, Intervention(s), Comparison(s), Outcome(s) [PICO] elements; 44% reported eligibility criteria based on PICO, and 76% reported assessing the risk of bias of SRs), except for methods for summarizing evidence (20%) or statistical synthesis (26%). A minority reported methods for handling unique aspects of overviews (e.g., overlap in the primary studies [30%], discrepant or missing data [14%], and discordant results/conclusions across reviews [20%]). CONCLUSION: Reporting of methods unique to overviews requires improvement. Our findings provide a benchmark of the completeness of reporting and may inform guidance on the conduct and reporting of overviews.

[Analysis of Argentine scientific production in MEDLINE in the area of hypertension]. / Análisis de la producción científica argentina en MEDLINE en el área hipertensión arterial.

INTRODUCTION: Argentine science has played an important role in the study of blood pressure. However, this scientific production has not been classified. We set out (1) to analyse the contribution of scientific publications indexed in MEDLINE of authors with Argentinean academic affiliation in the field of blood pressure and hypertension in the last 50 years and, (2) determine the characteristics of the scientific journals in which they were published. METHODS: The 831 indexed MEDLINE publications by authors from Argentina were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively (period 1966-2017). RESULTS: The number of publications has increased 5.4 times in the last 20 years. Eighty percent of the publications were original manuscripts and 15% reviews. Sixty-five percent of the publications addressed clinical research, 33% basic research. The average authors per paper was 6 (89% as first author), 74% belonged to public institutions. The research was published in journals published in the United States (36%), the United Kingdom (27%), the Netherlands (12%), Spain (6%) and Argentina (4%). Eighteen percent of the publications were in journals with impact factor >3.88 (first quartile). Only 5% accessed journals with a factor ≥10. The average SJR index was 1.66. CONCLUSIONS: Argentine scientific production in MEDLINE in the field of blood pressure and hypertension showed constant growth. The vast majority is original research, directed by researchers with affiliation to public institutions. Foreign journals are accessed in the main, with acceptable quality indexes.

Use of P-values and the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" in Abstracts in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of P-values and the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" in Abstracts in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive articles accepted for publication during the period January 2016 - February 2019 were systematically reviewed. Main goal: descriptive analysis of the citation of P-values and use of the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" in Abstracts. Secondary goal: analytic study of: (i) correlations between citation of a P-value and the main characteristics of authors and topics; and (ii) misuse of the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" with respect to cited P-values, and correlations with author and topic characteristics. RESULTS: In all, 91 articles were included. P-values and the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" were cited in 35.1%, 41.7%, 10.9% and 0% of Abstracts, respectively. Citing a P-value did not significantly correlate with author or topic characteristics. There were discrepancies between the terms "non-significant", "significant" and "suggestive" and P-values given in the body of the article in 57.1% of Abstracts, with 30.7% overestimation and 25.2% underestimation of results, without significant correlation with author or topic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Authors, editors and reviewers must pay particular attention to the spin resulting from inappropriate use of the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" in Abstracts of articles submitted to the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Diseases, to improve the rigor, quality and value of the scientific message delivered to the reader.

[Research Ranking of Spanish Public Universities (2019)].

Research Ranking of Spanish Public Universities (2019). BACKGROUND: The changes produced in the Spanish university system due to the Bologna process require periodically updated evaluation reports of research activity. The objective of this study is to update the last available ranking of Spanish public universities, based on data from 2013-2018. METHOD: The production and productivity of each university were assessed based on seven specific indicators and a global score: articles in journals indexed in the JCR (Journal Citation Reports), research periods, R+D projects, doctoral theses, FPU (training of university professors) grants, FPI (training of personal researchers) grants, and patents. RESULTS: Globally, the universities Complutense of Madrid, Barcelona, and Granada hold the first positions in terms of production, while the first positions in terms of productivity are held by the universities Pompeu Fabra, Autonomous of Madrid, and Autonomous of Barcelona. CONCLUSIONS: The universities that hold the top positions in this ranking remain relatively steady over time and are also the Spanish universities that stand out in international classifications.

Text mining for clinical support.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Dahlgren Memorial Library (DML) at the Georgetown University Medical Center began using text mining software to enable its clinical informationists to quickly retrieve specific, relevant information from MEDLINE abstracts while on patient rounds. DESCRIPTION: In 2013, DML licensed the use of the Linguamatics I2E text-mining program, and DML's clinical informationist began using it to text mine MEDLINE abstracts on patient rounds. In 2015, DML installed I2E on a server at Georgetown and negotiated with Elsevier to obtain the right to download and text mine the full text of clinical journals in ScienceDirect to support clinical decision making. In 2016, the license agreements for the New England Journal of Medicine and the BMJ platform were modified to allow text mining. In 2018, PubMed Central open access content was added to the Linguamatics license. RESULTS: DML's informationists found that they were able to quickly find useful information that was not retrievable by traditional methods, and clinicians reported the information was valuable. CONCLUSION: The ability to text mine MEDLINE abstracts and selected journal articles on patient rounds has allowed DML's clinical informationists to quickly search large amounts of medical literature that can be used to answer physicians' clinical questions. DML plans to acquire additional journal articles from selected publishers in the future, which should increase the usefulness of the project.

Search results outliers among MEDLINE platforms.

OBJECTIVE: Hypothetically, content in MEDLINE records is consistent across multiple platforms. Though platforms have different interfaces and requirements for query syntax, results should be similar when the syntax is controlled for across the platforms. The authors investigated how search result counts varied when searching records among five MEDLINE platforms. METHODS: We created 29 sets of search queries targeting various metadata fields and operators. Within search sets, we adapted 5 distinct, compatible queries to search 5 MEDLINE platforms (PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, Web of Science, and Ovid), totaling 145 final queries. The 5 queries were designed to be logically and semantically equivalent and were modified only to match platform syntax requirements. We analyzed the result counts and compared PubMed's MEDLINE result counts to result counts from the other platforms. We identified outliers by measuring the result count deviations using modified z-scores centered around PubMed's MEDLINE results. RESULTS: Web of Science and ProQuest searches were the most likely to deviate from the equivalent PubMed searches. EBSCOhost and Ovid were less likely to deviate from PubMed searches. Ovid's results were the most consistent with PubMed's but appeared to apply an indexing algorithm that resulted in lower retrieval sets among equivalent searches in PubMed. Web of Science exhibited problems with exploding or not exploding Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. CONCLUSION: Platform enhancements among interfaces affect record retrieval and challenge the expectation that MEDLINE platforms should, by default, be treated as MEDLINE. Substantial inconsistencies in search result counts, as demonstrated here, should raise concerns about the impact of platform-specific influences on search results.

Publication Barriers of Oral Abstracts From the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons: 2010-2014.

Despite possessing the highest oral abstract publication incidence for any national foot and ankle society conference to date (76.9%), it remains unclear why almost a quarter of the oral abstracts accepted to the annual American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) conference fail to achieve journal publication. The purpose of the present study was to assess the publication barriers of oral abstracts from the ACFAS conference: 2010 to 2014. Unpublished oral abstracts from the temporal period were procured from a database. A questionnaire was then distributed to the primary authors to determine the current status of the abstract, as well as the reasons for the failure to pursue or achieve journal publication. Of the 25 oral abstracts that failed to achieve journal publication before July 1, 2017, a total of 11 questionnaires were completed. At the time of the survey, 4 oral abstracts had since been published in a journal, 1 had been published outside of a journal, and 6 had never been submitted for publication consideration. An insufficient amount of time for manuscript preparation (42%), difficulties with co-authors (30%), and a low perceived priority (17%) were the 3 primary reasons authors cited for the failure to publish. Based on the principal barriers identified, a series of recommendations have been proposed to improve the future publication incidence of oral abstracts from the ACFAS conference and research productivity amongst foot and ankle surgeons.

Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally recommended; this is conducted by 2 reviewers independently of each other (conventional double-screening). However, the approach is resource intensive, which can be a problem, as systematic reviews generally need to be completed within a defined period with a limited budget. The aim of the following methodological systematic review was to analyse the evidence available on whether single screening is equivalent to double screening in the screening process conducted in systematic reviews. METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Methodology Register (last search 10/2018). We also used supplementary search techniques and sources ("similar articles" function in PubMed, conference abstracts and reference lists). We included all evaluations comparing single with double screening. Data were summarized in a structured, narrative way. RESULTS: The 4 evaluations included investigated a total of 23 single screenings (12 sets for screening involving 9 reviewers). The median proportion of missed studies was 5% (range 0 to 58%). The median proportion of missed studies was 3% for the 6 experienced reviewers (range: 0 to 21%) and 13% for the 3 reviewers with less experience (range: 0 to 58%). The impact of missing studies on the findings of meta-analyses had been reported in 2 evaluations for 7 single screenings including a total of 18,148 references. In 3 of these 7 single screenings - all conducted by the same reviewer (with less experience) - the findings would have changed substantially. The remaining 4 of these 7 screenings were conducted by experienced reviewers and the missing studies had no impact or a negligible on the findings of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in rapid reviews, as long as it is conducted by an experienced reviewer. Further research on single screening is required, for instance, regarding factors influencing the number of studies missed.