Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 57.691
Medwave ; 22(10): e2654, 2022 Nov 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36446020


Introduction: The prevalence of inclusion of randomized controlled trials published in Latin American journals has not been evaluated yet. This study explores the extent to which randomized trials published in Latin American medical journals are cited and used in systematic reviews. Methods: We did a descriptive observational study on randomized trials published in MEDLINE-indexed Latin American journals from 2010 to 2015. The primary outcome was the inclusion of these trials in systematic reviews. The secondary outcome was the total number of citations each trial received, as reported by Google Scholar. Results: Twenty-nine journals were selected. After searching these journals, we found 135 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria accounting for 2% of all research articles published in these journals. Of these, 55 (41%) were included in 202 systematic reviews. Of the nine most-cited randomized trials by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, only two were published in Spanish. Nine received zero citations by any article type. Most had small sample sizes. Conclusions: The overall impact of randomized controlled trials published in Latin American journals is low. Little funding, language bias and small sample sizes may explain the low inclusion in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Introducción: La prevalencia de la inclusión de ensayos controlados aleatorizados publicados en revistas latinoamericanas aún no ha sido evaluada. Este estudio tiene como objetivo explorar el grado en que los ensayos aleatorizados publicados en revistas médicas latinoamericanas son citados y utilizados en revisiones sistemáticas. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo sobre los ensayos aleatorizados publicados en revistas latinoamericanas indexadas en MEDLINE entre 2010 y 2015. El resultado primario fue la inclusión de estos ensayos en revisiones sistemáticas. El resultado secundario fue el número total de citas que recibió cada ensayo según lo informado por Google Scholar. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 29 revistas. Después de buscar en estas revistas, se encontraron 135 ensayos que cumplían los criterios de inclusión, lo que representa el 2% de todos los artículos de investigación publicados en estas revistas. De estos, 55 (41%) fueron incluidos por 202 revisiones sistemáticas. De los nueve ensayos aleatorios más citados por las revisiones sistemáticas y los metaanálisis, sólo dos fueron publicados en español. Nueve recibieron cero citas por cualquier tipo de artículo. La mayoría tenían tamaños muestrales pequeños. Conclusiones: El impacto de los ensayos controlados aleatorios publicados en revistas latinoamericanas es bajo. La escasa financiación, el sesgo lingüístico y el pequeño tamaño muestral pueden explicar la escasa inclusión en las revisiones sistemáticas y los metaanálisis.

Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , América Latina , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Publicações
Recenti Prog Med ; 113(12): 701-704, 2022 12.
Artigo em Italiano | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36420845


The growing national economic burden linked to cancer spending is certainly impacted by an aging population, yet it finds its greatest obstacle in the ever-increasing costs for diagnostics, therapies, and hospital care, putting a strain on patients' finances of the family and the health system. Even in a universal healthcare system like the Italian one, where much of the difficult decisions on healthcare spending are in the hands of government technicians, and shaped by political will, patients contribute to cancer costs out of their own pockets to a much greater extent than is perceived from common sense. The sustainability of the cancer care system cannot ignore the meticulous control of public spending, which is fundamental and essential for societies that aim to keep the standards of care extremely high and continuously improve access and reduce inequalities in cancer care. Clinical trials, healthcare professionals and patients are best placed to evaluate the costs and benefits of treatment choices and are among the most financially affected by such decisions. Can scientific journals in the sector have their contribution for improvement? How can journals potentially close this gap and inform doctors, taxpayers, and the general population? To address this problem effectively, attention needs to be paid to two fundamental issues: one is high-quality science, and another is the ability to inform decision-making.

Neoplasias , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Médicos , Humanos , Idoso , Neoplasias/terapia , Pessoal de Saúde , Envelhecimento
Front Immunol ; 13: 1035151, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36405695


Background: Since the global epidemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a large number of immunological studies related to COVID-19 have been published in various immunology journals. However, the results from these studies were discrete, and no study summarized the important immunological information about COVID-19 released by these immunology journals. This study aimed to comprehensively summarize the knowledge structure and research hotspots of COVID-19 published in major immunology journals through bibliometrics. Methods: Publications on COVID-19 in major immunology journals were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection. CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R-bibliometrix were comprehensively used for bibliometric and visual analysis. Results: 1,331 and 5,000 publications of 10 journals with high impact factors and 10 journals with the most papers were included, respectively. The USA, China, England, and Italy made the most significant contributions to these papers. University College London, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Harvard Medical School, University California San Diego, and University of Pennsylvania played a central role in international cooperation in the immunology research field of COVID-19. Yuen Kwok Yung was the most important author in terms of the number of publications and citations, and the H-index. CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES and FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY were the most essential immunology journals. These immunology journals mostly focused on the following topics: "Delta/Omicron variants", "cytokine storm", "neutralization/neutralizing antibody", "T cell", "BNT162b2", "mRNA vaccine", "vaccine effectiveness/safety", and "long COVID". Conclusion: This study systematically uncovered a holistic picture of the current research on COVID-19 published in major immunology journals from the perspective of bibliometrics, which will provide a reference for future research in this field.

COVID-19 , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Bibliometria
World J Gastroenterol ; 28(39): 5731-5734, 2022 Oct 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36338893


Letters to the editor can provide useful scientific information and evaluation of published work as well as acting as an additional level of peer review. Furthermore, letters are good reading material, especially if they involve a debate between authors. Finally, letters are relatively short. Therefore, inexperienced career researchers can use such an opportunity to practice putting together a cogent argument. However, it is far from an ideal situation if letters are the only (or main) type of article on which to base an academic career.

Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , Pesquisadores
Nat Biomed Eng ; 6(11): 1197-1198, 2022 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36369352
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(44): e31441, 2022 Nov 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36343077


BACKGROUND: A common concern in the literature is the comparison of the similarities and differences between research journals, as well as the types of research they publish. At present, there are no clear methodologies that can be applied to a given article of interest. When authors use an effective and efficient method to locate journals in similar fields, they benefit greatly. By using the forest plot and major medical subject headings (MeSH terms) of Spine (Phila Pa 1976) compared to Spine J, this study: displays relatively similar journals to the target journal online and identifies the effect of the similarity odds ratio of Spine (Phila Pa 1976) compared to Spine J. METHODS: From the PubMed library, we downloaded 1000 of the most recent top 20 most similar articles related to Spine (Phila Pa 1976) and then plotted the clusters of related journals using social network analysis (SNA). The forest plot was used to compare the differences in MeSH terms for 2 journals (Spine (Phila Pa 1976) and Spine J) based on odds ratios. The heterogeneity of the data was evaluated using the Q statistic and the I-square (I2) index. RESULTS: This study shows that: the journals related to Spine (Phila Pa 1976) can easily be presented on a dashboard via Google Maps; 8 journal clusters were identified using SNA; the 3 most frequently searched MeSH terms are surgery, diagnostic imaging, and methods; and the odds ratios of MeSH terms only show significant differences with the keyword "surgery" between Spine (Phila Pa 1976) and Spine J with homogeneity at I2 = 17.7% (P = .27). CONCLUSIONS: The SNA and forest plot provide a detailed overview of the inter-journal relationships and the target journal using MeSH terms. Based on the findings of this research, readers are provided with knowledge and concept diagrams that can be used in future submissions to related journals.

Medical Subject Headings , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , Bibliometria , PubMed , Florestas
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 119(47): e2118046119, 2022 Nov 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36395142


There are long-standing concerns that peer review, which is foundational to scientific institutions like journals and funding agencies, favors conservative ideas over novel ones. We investigate the association between novelty and the acceptance of manuscripts submitted to a large sample of scientific journals. The data cover 20,538 manuscripts submitted between 2013 and 2018 to the journals Cell and Cell Reports and 6,785 manuscripts submitted in 2018 to 47 journals published by the Institute of Physics Publishing. Following previous work that found that a balance of novel and conventional ideas predicts citation impact, we measure the novelty and conventionality of manuscripts by the atypicality of combinations of journals in their reference lists, taking the 90th percentile most atypical combination as "novelty" and the 50th percentile as "conventionality." We find that higher novelty is consistently associated with higher acceptance; submissions in the top novelty quintile are 6.5 percentage points more likely than bottom quintile ones to get accepted. Higher conventionality is also associated with acceptance (+16.3% top-bottom quintile difference). Disagreement among peer reviewers was not systematically related to submission novelty or conventionality, and editors select strongly for novelty even conditional on reviewers' recommendations (+7.0% top-bottom quintile difference). Manuscripts exhibiting higher novelty were more highly cited. Overall, the findings suggest that journal peer review favors novel research that is well situated in the existing literature, incentivizing exploration in science and challenging the view that peer review is inherently antinovelty.

Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto
JAMA Oncol ; 8(11): 1543, 2022 Nov 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36394572