A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries

Global trends and hotspots of ChatGPT in medical research: a bibliometric and visualized study

Objective

With the rapid advancement of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in medical research, our study aimed to identify global trends and focal points in this domain.

Method

All publications on ChatGPT in medical research were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) by Clarivate Analytics from January 1, 2023, to January 31, 2024. The research trends and focal points were visualized and analyzed using VOSviewer and CiteSpace.

Results

A total of 1,239 publications were collected and analyzed. The USA contributed the largest number of publications (458, 37.145%) with the highest total citation frequencies (2,461) and the largest H-index. Harvard University contributed the highest number of publications (33) among all full-time institutions. The Cureus Journal of Medical Science published the most ChatGPT-related research (127, 10.30%). Additionally, Wiwanitkit V contributed the majority of publications in this field (20). "Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)," "Education and Training," "Healthcare Applications," and "Data Analysis and Technology" emerged as the primary clusters of keywords. These areas are predicted to remain hotspots in future research in this field.

Conclusion

Overall, this study signifies the interdisciplinary nature of ChatGPT research in medicine, encompassing AI and ML technologies, education and training initiatives, diverse healthcare applications, and data analysis and technology advancements. These areas are expected to remain at the forefront of future research, driving continued innovation and progress in the field of ChatGPT in medical research.

Key actors in behavioral health services availability and accessibility research: a scoping review bibliometric analysis

This bibliometric review aims to identify key actors in the behavioral health services availability/accessibility literature. Coalescing information about these actors could support subsequent research efforts to improve the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services. The authors used a scoping review method and a bibliometric approach. The articles came from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Articles were included if they assessed behavioral health service availability or accessibility quantitatively and were written in English. The final sample included 265 articles. Bibliometric data were extracted, coded, and verified. The authors analyzed the data using univariate and social network analyses. Publishing in this area has become more consistent and has grown since 2002. Psychiatric Services and Graduate Theses were the most frequently used publication venues. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and the Veterans Administration funded the most research. The most frequently used keyword was "health services accessibility." The findings suggest that this literature is growing. There are a few clusters of researchers in this area. Government organizations primarily fund this research. The paper and supplementary materials list the top researchers, publication venues, funding sources, and key terms to promote further behavioral health availability/accessibility research.

Responsible research in the practice of anatomy: Attributes relevant to body donors and human tissues sourced from them

Responsible Research involves setting moral examples before fellow academicians and the society as a whole. The concept of Responsible Research applies appropriately to ethical sourcing and handling of human tissues. The present study was undertaken to analyze present situation regarding implementation of attributes of Relevant Research in relation to body donors in anatomical research. A literature search of relevant, peer-reviewed, published articles was undertaken from indexed databases (Medline & PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and Google Scholar) for this study. The following attributes of Responsible Research were identified for possible intervention: the fact that research was conducted on human tissues from body donors and details regarding ethical handling thereof may be explicitly mentioned in method section; expression of gratitude towards body donors by authors may be included in acknowledgement section; editor's and publisher's note in support of adoption of attributes of Responsible Research may be included in published research. Adherence to best practices in terms of ethical guidelines requires anatomists to embrace a responsible approach in research from an inclusive perspective. Accordingly, practice of acknowledging the body donors may be nurtured and augmented to include the anonymised dead (human tissues from unclaimed bodies and unknown source) provided the research protocol received clearance from authorities concerned with ethical scrutiny. Moreover, adoption of the practice in review articles will enhance the boundaries of Responsible Research in anatomical science. Thus, few recommendations are proposed as epilogue for effectual implementation of the notion floated in present study.

Publication Trends of Research on Intrathecal Baclofen Therapy: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyze the trends in publications on intrathecal baclofen (ITB) therapy.

METHODS

We searched Elsevier's Scopus database in February 2022 to find articles focused on ITB therapy. Data extracted included citation count, publication year, author's country and income category, journal and its 5-year impact factor, research type, disease requiring ITB, and target population.

RESULTS

The analysis covered 615 articles from 1985 to 2022. The average citation count per article was 27.47 (95% confidence interval 23.75-31.18) and the mean impact factor was 4.54 (95% confidence interval 3.84-5.24). The majority (76.42%) were primary research, with 8.1% being interventional and 91.9% observational. Even so, one half of the top ten most cited were interventional. Secondary research and case reports made up 12.68% and 10.73% respectively, with narrative reviews making up most of the secondary research (79.48%). Only 1 study conducted a meta-analysis. The United States was the most prolific country. High-income countries published 96.42% of articles.

CONCLUSIONS

The rising number of ITB articles and citations indicates growing interest and expanding knowledge in this field. However, there's a notable scarcity of research from low- and middle-income countries, particularly those with high prevalence of ITB-treatable diseases. The need for more evidence to overcome potential barriers to ITB implementation is emphasized. Despite an increasing number of publications, a large proportion presented low levels of evidence, such as case reports and narrative reviews, highlighting the need for more rigorous research methods to solidify the evidence base for ITB therapy.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Evaluating patient safety research performance in Arab world countries: Changing trends and reflections

Background and Objective

Patient safety is a major concern in health care. Research is an important tool to minimize preventable errors. Research performance and trends evaluation need to be identified for future guidance. Our objective was to evaluate the research performance in Arab World countries related to patient safety so that real picture is available to all stake holders for future application.

Methods

This was a descriptive exploratory study carried at King Abdulaziz University Jeddah, using Bibliometric analyses on Web of Science extracted data, exploring the research publications related to Patient Safety from the Arab World in last two decades (2001-2020). Digital resources were used. Data collected was further explored to see the trends.

Results

Only 2% of total worldwide publications on Patient Safety were from Arab World. A positive trend, however, has emerged since 2015. Out of 5940 documents identified, only 383 had single authorship. Egypt and Saudi Arab were the major contributors. Other countries had less or even zero publications. Researchers are coordinating with others in Western countries to enhance the research productivity. Cairo University with 734 publications had most affiliations. Publications on safety culture and medication safety were frequent. Hospital Acquired Infections and error reporting had limited research.

Conclusion

Researches on patient safety in the Arab World are not sufficient. Countries other than Egypt and Saudi Arabia also need to contribute more frequently. Critical problems, like Hospital Acquired Infections, should have regular research from all countries to assist those treating patients and those making health related policies.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Rise of ChatGPT in Medical Research

The rapid emergence of publicly accessible artificial intelligence platforms such as large language models (LLMs) has led to an equally rapid increase in articles exploring their potential benefits and risks. We performed a bibliometric analysis of ChatGPT literature in medicine and science to better understand publication trends and knowledge gaps. Following title, abstract, and keyword searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for ChatGPT articles published in the medical field, articles were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included articles, with citation counts obtained from PubMed and journal metrics obtained from Clarivate Journal Citation Reports. After screening, 267 articles were included in the study, most of which were editorials or correspondence with an average of 7.5 +/- 18.4 citations per publication. Published articles on ChatGPT were authored largely in the United States, India, and China. The topics discussed included use and accuracy of ChatGPT in research, medical education, and patient counseling. Among non-surgical specialties, radiology published the most ChatGPT-related articles, while plastic surgery published the most articles among surgical specialties. The average citation number among the top 20 most-cited articles was 60.1 +/- 35.3. Among journals with the most ChatGPT-related publications, there were on average 10 +/- 3.7 publications. Our results suggest that managing the inevitable ethical and safety issues that arise with the implementation of LLMs will require further research exploring the capabilities and accuracy of ChatGPT, to generate policies guiding the adoption of artificial intelligence in medicine and science.

A Scoping Review of Adopted Information Extraction Methods for RCTs

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the strongest evidence for therapeutic interventions and their effects on groups of subjects. However, the large amount of unstructured information in these trials makes it challenging and time-consuming to make decisions and identify important concepts and valid evidence. This study aims to explore methods for automating or semi-automating information extraction from reports of RCT studies.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles published between January 1, 2010, and 2022. We focused on published Natural Language Processing (NLP), machine learning, and deep learning methods that automate or semi-automate key elements of information extraction in the context of RCTs.

Results

A total of 26 publications were included, which discussed the automatic extraction of key characteristics of RCTs using various PICO frameworks (PIBOSO and PECODR). Among these publications, 14 (53.8%) extracted key characteristics based on PICO, PIBOSO, and PECODR, while 12 (46.1%) discussed information extraction methods in RCT studies. Common approaches mentioned included word/phrase matching, machine learning algorithms such as binary classification using the Naïve Bayes algorithm and powerful BERT network for feature extraction, support vector machine for data classification, conditional random field, non-machine-dependent automation, and machine learning or deep learning approaches.

Conclusion

The lack of publicly available software and limited access to existing software makes it difficult to determine the most powerful information extraction system. However, deep learning models like Transformers and BERT language models have shown better performance in natural language processing.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Systematic literature reviews over the years

Purpose: Nowadays, systematic literature reviews (SLRs) and meta-analyses are often placed at the top of the study hierarchy of evidence. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the trends in SLRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) throughout the years. Methods: Medline database was searched, using a highly focused search strategy. Each paper was coded according to a specific ICD-10 code; the number of RCTs included in each evaluated SLR was also retrieved. All SLRs analyzing RCTs were included. Protocols, commentaries, or errata were excluded. No restrictions were applied. Results: A total of 7,465 titles and abstracts were analyzed, from which 6,892 were included for further analyses. There was a gradual increase in the number of annual published SLRs, with a significant increase in published articles during the last several years. Overall, the most frequently analyzed areas were diseases of the circulatory system (n = 750) and endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (n = 734). The majority of SLRs included between 11 and 50 RCTs each. Conclusions: The recognition of SLRs' usefulness is growing at an increasing speed, which is reflected by the growing number of published studies. The most frequently evaluated diseases are in alignment with leading causes of death and disability worldwide.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

An appraisal of peer-reviewed published literature on Influenza, 2000-2021 from countries in South-East Asia Region

Background

Influenza poses a major public health challenge in South-East Asia Region (SEAR). To address the challenge, there is a need to generate contextual evidence that could inform policy makers and program managers for response preparedness and impact mitigation. The World Health Organization has identified priority areas across five streams for research evidence generation at a global level (WHO Public Health Research Agenda). Stream 1 focuses on research for reducing the risk of emergence, Stream 2 on limiting the spread, Stream 3 on minimizing the impact, Stream 4 on optimizing the treatment and Stream 5 on promoting public health tools and technologies for Influenza. However, evidence generation from SEAR has been arguably low and needs a relook for alignment with priorities. This study aimed to undertake a bibliometric analysis of medical literature on Influenza over the past 21 years to identify gaps in research evidence and for identifying major areas for focusing with a view to provide recommendations to member states and SEAR office for prioritizing avenues for future research.

Methods

We searched Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases in August 2021. We identified studies on influenza published from the 11 countries in WHO SEAR in the date range of 1 January 2000-31 December 2021. Data was retrieved, tagged and analyzed based on the WHO priority streams for Influenza, member states, study design and type of research. Bibliometric analysis was done on Vosviewer.

Findings

We included a total of 1,641 articles (Stream 1: n = 307; Stream 2: n = 516; Stream 3: n = 470; Stream 4: n = 309; Stream 5: n = 227). Maximum number of publications were seen in Stream 2, i.e., limiting the spread of pandemic, zoonotic, and seasonal epidemic influenza which majorly included transmission, spread of virus at global and local levels and public health measures to limit the transmission. The highest number of publications was from India (n = 524) followed by Thailand (n = 407), Indonesia (n = 214) and Bangladesh (n = 158). Bhutan (n = 10), Maldives (n = 1), Democratic People's Republic of Korea (n = 1), and Timor-Leste (n = 3) had the least contribution in Influenza research. The top-most journal was PloS One which had the maximum number of influenza articles (n = 94) published from SEAR countries. Research that generated actionable evidence, i.e., implementation and intervention related topics were less common. Similarly, research on pharmaceutical interventions and on innovations was low. SEAR member states had inconsistent output across the five priority research streams, and there was a much higher scope and need for collaborative research. Basic science research showed declining trends and needed reprioritization.

Interpretation

While a priority research agenda has been set for influenza at the global level through the WHO Global Influenza Program since 2009, and subsequently revisited in 2011 and again in 2016-2017, a structured contextualized approach to guide actionable evidence generation activities in SEAR has been lacking. In the backset of the Global Influenza Strategy 2019-2030 and the COVID-19 pandemic, attuning research endeavors in SEAR could help in improved pandemic influenza preparedness planning. There is a need to prioritize contextually relevant research themes within priority streams. Member states must inculcate a culture of within and inter-country collaboration to produce evidence that has regional as well as global value.

Association of literature metrics in gynecologic oncology with country classification by income level

Objective

Bibliometric literature in gynecologic oncology is limited. We aimed to study the association between the level of income of the country of authorship and citation metrics.

Methods

A retrospective study including all articles and reviews published during 1977–2022 in theInternational Journal of Gynecological Cancer(IJGC) andGynecologic Oncologyjournals. Country of origin was defined as the corresponding author’s address. We classified articles into groups by level of income of the country of origin, as defined by the World Bank. The primary outcome measure was the median number of citations per year.

Results

A total of 9835 articles were included in the analysis (IJGCn=3786 (38.5%),Gynecologic Oncologyn=6049 (61.5%)). There were 8587 (87.3%) publications from high income countries, 1134 (11.5%) from upper-middle income countries, and 114 (1.2%) from lower-middle income countries. There were no publications from countries of low income. Most publications originated in the United States with 4089 (41.6%), followed by China (n=730, 7.4%), Italy (n=533, 5.4%), Canada (n=467, 4.7%), and Japan (n=461, 4.7%). Over the most recent 5 years there was a decrease in the representation of upper-middle income countries and lower-middle income countries; 16.3% (91/557) in 2018 versus 9.1% (38/417) in 2022 (p=0.005). In a multivariable regression analysis that included year of publication, open access publication model, study being supported by funding, publishing journal, review article, and level of income, all factors were associated with high citation per year score except the income classification of the article’s country of origin (adjusted OR 1.59–1.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.30).

Conclusion

High income countries have a disproportionate representation in gynecologic oncology publications. After adjusting for confounders, the country’s level of income was not independently associated with a high citation per year score. This implies that the number of citations per year is not compromised by the country’s level of income.

metaumbrella: the first comprehensive suite to perform data analysis in umbrella reviews with stratification of the evidence

OBJECTIVE

Umbrella reviews are a new form of literature review that summarises the strength and/or quality of the evidence from all systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted on a broad topic. This type of review thus provides an exhaustive examination of a vast body of information, providing the highest synthesis of knowledge. A critical strength of umbrella reviews is recalculating the meta-analytic estimates within a uniform framework to allow a consistent evidence stratification. To our best knowledge, there is no comprehensive package or software to conduct umbrella reviews.

METHODS

The R package metaumbrella accomplishes this aim by building on three core functions that (1) automatically perform all required calculations in an umbrella review (including but not limited to pairwise meta-analyses), (2) stratify evidence according to various classification criteria and (3) generate a visual representation of the results. In addition, this package allows flexible inputs for each review or meta-analysis analysed (eg, means plus SD, or effect size estimate and CI) and customisation (eg, stratification criteria following Ioannidis, algorithmic GRADE or personalised classification).

RESULTS

The R package metaumbrella thus provides the first comprehensive range of facilities to perform umbrella reviews with stratification of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

To facilitate the use of this package, even for researchers unfamiliar with R, we also provide a JAMOVI module and an open-access, browser-based graphical interface that allow use of the core functions of the package with a few mouse clicks.

Influence of epidemics and pandemics on paediatric ED use: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of epidemics and pandemics on the utilisation of paediatric emergency care services to provide health policy advice.

SETTING

Systematic review.

DESIGN

Searches were conducted of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for studies that reported on changes in paediatric emergency care utilisation during epidemics (as defined by the WHO).

PATIENTS

Children under 18 years.

INTERVENTIONS

National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in paediatric emergency care utilisation.

RESULTS

131 articles were included within this review, 80% of which assessed the impact of COVID-19. Studies analysing COVID-19, SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and Ebola found a reduction in paediatric emergency department (PED) visits, whereas studies reporting on H1N1, chikungunya virus and Escherichia coli outbreaks found an increase in PED visits. For COVID-19, there was a reduction of 63.86% (95% CI 60.40% to 67.31%) with a range of -16.5% to -89.4%. Synthesis of results suggests that the fear of the epidemic disease, from either contracting it or its potential adverse clinical outcomes, resulted in reductions and increases in PED utilisation, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The scale and direction of effect of PED use depend on both the epidemic disease, the public health measures enforced and how these influence decision-making. Policy makers must be aware how fear of virus among the general public may influence their response to public health advice. There is large inequity in reporting of epidemic impact on PED use which needs to be addressed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021242808.

Perceptions of medical undergraduate students toward biomedical research - A sequential, explanatory, mixed-method study from Puducherry, South India

BACKGROUND

Biomedical research is not given adequate attention during undergraduation due to the failure of the medical curriculum to motivate the students to take up research, teach the research methodology, and emphasize the scope of research in the future. Our objective was to study the perceptions of medical undergraduate students toward biomedical research and to explore the facilitators and barriers to biomedical research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method study. Consenting medical undergraduate students, irrespective of their previous contribution to research, were interviewed by a pretested questionnaire concerning biomedical research, its barriers, and facilitators. For the qualitative component, two focused group discussions (FGDs) were conducted among students in the nonclinical and clinical phases. Data were analyzed and expressed as percentages. Thematic manual content analysis of the transcribed manuscripts was performed.

RESULTS

This study included 553 participants. Only 5.52% had previous experience undertaking research. Self-interest and acquiring deeper knowledge were identified as drivers. Lack of motivation, proper guidance, and training in research methodology was found to be the barrier among 90% of the subjects. The FGD reflected the perceptions of students and variations in their ideologies toward taking up research.

CONCLUSION

It becomes important to analyze the factors that promote or avert a student from taking up research. A thorough investigation in this regard will be helpful for future cohorts of medical students and will impact their decisions on taking up research and in seeking a career in research-based fields.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

An appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review

The objective of the study was to evaluate all available systematic reviews on the use of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). An umbrella review on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome was conducted. We performed a systematic search in the database of Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos. The ROBIS tools and GRADE methodology were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We estimated the necessary number of patients to be treated to have benefit. For the synthesis of the result, we selected the review with the lowest risk of bias. Sixteen systematic reviews including 64 randomized clinical trials and evaluating the effect of prone positional ventilation, with or without other ventilation strategies were included. Aoyama 2019 observed prone positioning, without complementary ventilation strategies, leading to a reduction in the 28-day mortality only when compared to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.95) and lung-protective ventilation in the supine position (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98), with an ARR of 9.32% and 14.94%, an NNTB of 5.89 and 8.04, and a low and moderate certainty of evidence, respectively. Most reviews had severe methodological flaws that led to results with very low certainty of evidence. The review with the lowest risk of bias presented results in favor of prone positional ventilation compared with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and lung-protective ventilation. There is a need to update the available reviews to obtain more accurate results.

Network Analysis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research: Towards the Interactome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Modern views accept that inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] emerge from complex interactions among the multiple components of a biological network known as the 'IBD interactome'. These diverse components belong to different functional levels including cells, molecules, genes and biological processes. This diversity can make it difficult to integrate available empirical information from human patients into a collective view of aetiopathogenesis, a necessary step to understand the interactome. Herein, we quantitatively analyse how the representativeness of components involved in human IBD and their relationships ha ve changed over time.

METHODS

A bibliographic search in PubMed retrieved 25 971 abstracts of experimental studies on IBD in humans, published between 1990 and 2020. Abstracts were scanned automatically for 1218 IBD interactome components proposed in recent reviews. The resulting databases are freely available and were visualized as networks indicating the frequency at which different components are referenced together within each abstract.

RESULTS

As expected, over time there was an increase in components added to the IBD network and heightened connectivity within and across functional levels. However, certain components were consistently studied together, forming preserved motifs in the networks. These overrepresented and highly linked components reflect main 'hypotheses' in IBD research in humans. Interestingly, 82% of the components cited in reviews were absent or showed low frequency, suggesting that many aspects of the proposed IBD interactome still have weak experimental support in humans.

CONCLUSIONS

A reductionist and fragmented approach to the study of IBD has prevailed in previous decades, highlighting the importance of transitioning towards a more integrated interactome framework.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning in pain research: a data scientometric analysis

The collection of increasing amounts of data in health care has become relevant for pain therapy and research. This poses problems for analyses with classical approaches, which is why artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods are being included into pain research. The current literature on AI and ML in the context of pain research was automatically searched and manually curated. Common machine learning methods and pain settings covered were evaluated. Further focus was on the origin of the publication and technical details, such as the included sample sizes of the studies analyzed with ML. Machine learning was identified in 475 publications from 18 countries, with 79% of the studies published since 2019. Most addressed pain conditions included low back pain, musculoskeletal disorders, osteoarthritis, neuropathic pain, and inflammatory pain. Most used ML algorithms included random forests and support vector machines; however, deep learning was used when medical images were involved in the diagnosis of painful conditions. Cohort sizes ranged from 11 to 2,164,872, with a mode at n = 100; however, deep learning required larger data sets often only available from medical images. Artificial intelligence and ML, in particular, are increasingly being applied to pain-related data. This report presents application examples and highlights advantages and limitations, such as the ability to process complex data, sometimes, but not always, at the cost of big data requirements or black-box decisions.

Randomised controlled trials in women's health in the last two decades: A meta-review

OBJECTIVES

Obstetric and gynaecological conditions represent a significant burden of disease, requiring clinical research. We aimed to study trends in the publication of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women's health over the last two decades. The primary objective was to describe longitudinal trends in the geographical distribution of RCTs in obstetrics and gynaecology. We also described trends in trial funding, publication sources and separately published trial protocols.

STUDY DESIGN

RCTs were identified by searching the Web of Science alone, due to the large number of results and descriptive nature of analyses. Using the filter tool, only studies labelled as "Clinical trial" or "Article" were included; all other document types were excluded. Trial protocols were identified and analysed separately. Indexing data were extracted using the Web of Science selection tools. As we aimed simply to describe research trends using a single platform, we did not check for duplicates. No process for data pooling was necessary. Correlation of GDP, funding and number of RCTs was calculated using Pearson's r test.

RESULTS

We identified 39,071 RCTs. The number of annual publications globally increased from 1,406 in 2001 to 1,979 in 2020. The US (n = 12,479) and the UK (n = 3,745) were responsible for the most RCTs, followed by Italy (n = 2,676) and China (n = 2,338). The largest percentage increase in annual publications was seen in Iran (n = 5 to n = 113, +2,160 %) and the Western Pacific Region (n = 16 to n = 171, +968.8 %). GDP was significantly correlated with the number of published RCTs in 2019 for the 25 most prolific countries (p < 0.001), but not with the proportion of RCTs funded.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite growing contributions from the Western Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean regions, most RCTs are still produced in a small nucleus of high-income countries. Increased international collaboration may benefit both high- and low-income countries.

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups.

RESULTS

Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items.

CONCLUSION

The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.

The catch-22 of promotion: Is becoming department chair of surgery a threat to the triple threat?

BACKGROUND

Despite the "fourth threat" of administrative demands, department chairs of surgery are expected to continue being a "triple threat": productive in research, outstanding in teaching, and exemplary in practice. Increased demands despite limited time are the catch-22 of promotion. This study investigated the influence of becoming department chair on scholarly vigor.

METHODS

The surgeons listed in the Society of Surgical Chairs Membership Directory website (n = 118) were included in this study. Three measures were compared during the pre- and post-promotion phases: (1) research productivity (annual publications); (2) authorship position in publications (first-authorship, co-authorship, and senior-authorship); and (3) scholarly impact (m-index and National Institute of Health funding).

RESULTS

The median [interquartile range] number of publications per year increased post-promotion versus pre-promotion (7.64 [3.81-14.15] vs 4.12 [2.08-7.03], P < .0005). The median [interquartile range] number of first-authorship publications per year decreased (0.50 [0.00-1.00] vs 0.64 [0.32-1.22], P < .05), whereas the median [interquartile range] number of co-authorship (4.23 [1.98-9.70] vs 2.02 [1.02-3.95], P < .0005) and senior-authorship (1.87 [0.99-4.03] vs 1.00 [0.36-2.24], P < .0005) publications per year increased post-promotion. The mean ± standard deviation m-index increased post-promotion (1.67 ± 1.19 vs 1.23 ± 0.83, P < .01). The mean ± standard deviation annual National Institute of Health grant funding amount of 48% (n = 57) of the department chairs increased post-promotion ($365,000 ± $899,000 vs $98,000 ± $143,000 pre-promotion, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The fourth threat of administrative demands is not a threat to the triple threat. This study showed the department chairs' continued scholarly vigor after promotion, providing insight into their tenacity, resilience, and dedication.

Bibliometric Analysis of Research on the Use of the Nine Hole Peg Test

Manual dexterity is essential for performing daily life tasks, becoming a primary means of interaction with the physical, social, and cultural environment. In this respect, the Nine Hole Peg Test (NHPT) is considered a gold standard for assessing manual dexterity. Bibliometrics is a discipline that focuses on analyzing publications to describe, evaluate, and predict the status and development trends in certain fields of scientific research. We performed a bibliometric analysis to track research results and identify global trends regarding the use of the NHPT. The bibliographic data were retrieved from the Web of Science database and then analyzed using the Bibliometrix R package, resulting in the retrieval of a total of 615 publications from 1988 to 2021. Among the 263 journals investigated, the most prolific were the Multiple Sclerosis Journal, Clinical Rehabilitation, and Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. North America and Europe were the areas with the highest production of publications, with the United States (n = 104) ranking first in terms of the number of publications, followed by the United Kingdom (n = 62) and Italy (n = 62). The analysis of keywords revealed that there were two main lines of research, with one related to the study of recovery and disability of the upper limbs caused by certain diseases and another related to the study of reliability and validity. Structured information can be useful to understand the research trajectory and the uses of this tool.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement

OBJECTIVE

To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

DESIGN

Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.

PARTICIPANTS

Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist.

SETTING

International consensus.

INTERVENTION

Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline.

RESULTS

From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

Solar Energy-Based Future Perspective for Organic Rankine Cycle Applications

This article explores the patents of solar energy technologies in the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) applications. The conversion of low-quality thermal energy into electricity is one of the main characteristics of an ORC, making efficient and viable technologies available today. However, only a few and outdated articles that analyze patents that use solar energy technologies in ORC applications exist. This leads to a lack of updated information regarding the number of published patents, International Patent Classification (IPC) codes associated with them, technology life cycle status, and the most relevant patented developments. Thus, this article conducts a current investigation of patents published between January 2010 and May 2022 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology and keywords. One thousand two hundred ninety-nine patents were obtained as part of the study and classified in F and Y groups of the IPC. The time-lapse analyzed was between January 2010 and May 2022. In 2014 and 2015, a peak of published patents was observed. China (CN) was the country that published the most significant number of patents worldwide. However, the European Patent Office (EP), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WO), and the United States (US) publish the patents with the highest number of patent citations. Furthermore, the possible trend regarding the development of patents for each technology is presented. A high-performance theoretical ORC plant based on the patent information analyzed by this article is introduced. Finally, exploration of IPC revealed 17 codes related to solar energy technologies in ORC applications not indexed in the main search.

Bibliometric Analysis of Literature on Physical Activity and COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic induced a sudden surge in COVID-19 related publications. This bibliometric analysis aimed to analyze literature on physical activity and COVID-19 published in the PubMed database. The search terms ((physical activity [MeSH Terms] OR physical inactivity [MeSH Terms]) AND COVID-19 [MeSH Terms]) were applied to obtain publications from the inception of PubMed to February 2022. The analyses included the year of publication, type of publication, and origin of publication by country, region, and country income. The research areas were analyzed for research articles and systematic reviews. Of 1268 articles, 143 articles were excluded, and 1125 articles were analyzed. A total of 709 articles (63.02%) were published in 2021. A majority of publications were research articles (n = 678, 60.27%). The USA (n = 176, 15.64%), countries in the European Region (n = 496, 44.09%), and high-income countries (n = 861, 76.53%) were dominant publishing countries. Of 699 research articles and systematic reviews, surveillance and trends of physical activity were the main research area, followed by health outcomes, and correlates and determinants of physical activity. There is a wide gap in publication productivity in the field of physical activity and health during the pandemic among different countries' economic statuses.

Evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development group members: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Introduction: Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. However, clinical guideline development groups (CGDG) are multidisciplinary, and participants such as policymakers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives can face obstacles when trying to understand and use evidence synthesis findings. Summary formats to communicate the results of evidence syntheses have become increasingly common, but it is currently unclear which format is most effective for different stakeholders. This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of different evidence synthesis summary formats for CGDG members.

Methods: This protocol follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute on MMSRs and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-P guideline. A comprehensive search of six databases will be performed with no language restrictions. Primary outcomes are those relating to the effectiveness and preferences for and attitudes towards the different summary formats. We will include qualitative research and randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers will perform title, abstract, and full-text screening. Independent double-extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be undertaken using a standardised form. We will use a convergent segregated approach to analyse quantitative and qualitative data separately; results will then be integrated.

Discussion: The results of this systematic review will provide an overview of the effectiveness and acceptability of different summary formats for evidence synthesis findings. These findings can be helpful for those in or communicating to guideline development groups. The results can also inform the development and pilot-testing of summary formats for evidence summaries.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in indexed Portuguese medical journals: time trends and critical appraisal

Introduction

Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.

Material and methods

This was a methodological study. We aimed the most visible Portuguese medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search (through PUBMED). We included systematic reviews published up to August 2020. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.

Results

Sixty-six systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n = 53; 80.3%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Up to 2010 there was a steady increase in the number of systematic reviews published, followed by a period of great variability of publication, ranging from 1 to 10 in a given year. According to the systematic reviews’ typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness/efficacy of health interventions (n = 27; 40.9%). General and Internal Medicine (n = 20; 30.3%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n = 46; 69.7%) were rated as being of “critically low-quality”.

Conclusions

There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results.

Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01591-z.

Facilitating Open Science Practices for Research Syntheses: PreregRS Guides Preregistration

Researchers increasingly engage in adopting open science practices in the field of research syntheses, such as preregistration. Preregistration is a central open science practice in empirical research to enhance transparency in the research process and it gains steady adoption in the context of conducting research synthesis. From an interdisciplinary perspective, frameworks and particularly templates are lacking which support researchers preparing a preregistration. To this end, we introduce preregRS, a template to guide researchers across disciplines through the process of preregistering research syntheses. We utilized an R Markdown template file to provide a framework that structures the process of preparing a preregistration. Researchers can write up the preregistration using the template file similar to filling out a form, with the template providing additional hints and further information for the decisions along the framework. We integrated the R Markdown template in an R package for easy installation and use, but also provide a browser-based option for users granting low-barrier access. PreregRS constitutes a first step to facilitate and support preregistration with research syntheses for all disciplines. It further adds to establishing open science practices in conducting research syntheses. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Global health workforce research: Comparative analyses of the scientific publication trends in PubMed

AIM

To analyse the amount of Human Resources for Health (HRH) research publication trends [1990-2019], compared to the broader health policy, systems, and services research (HPSSR).

METHODS

PubMed and its indexation system with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are used for this time-trend study. Searches combine MeSH terms for research publications and HPSSR or HRH subjects, except education. Sub-group searches are conducted on: funding support, and high- versus low- and middle-income countries (HICs vs. LMICs). Linear regressions are used for the analysis.

RESULTS

HRH research publications rose exponentially (r²  = 0.94; p < 0.001) from 129 yearly publications in 1990, to 867 in 2018. Yet, HRH research publications had a logarithmic decrease (p < 0.001) in percentage of broader HPSSR publications, from 2.5% to 1.5% [1990-2018]. Funding support increased significantly and linearly (p < 0.001 r²  = 0.88), up to 44% in 2018. The percentage of HRH research publications addressing LMICs grew linearly (p < 0.001; r²  = 0.75), up to 23% in 2018.

CONCLUSION

HRH research publications in the PubMed database increased especially in the more recent years but did not outpace (in earlier times was outpaced) by the growth of HPSSR publications overall. Yearly, HICs still accounted for more than three-quarters of HRH research. These findings can inform global and health research policies.

Trends in Academic Achievement Within Otolaryngology: Does Fellowship Training Impact Research Productivity?

BACKGROUND

Scholarly productivity and research output vary among different subspecialties. The h-index was developed as a more wholesome metric that measures an author's contribution to literature.

OBJECTIVE

Through a web-based cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences in scholarly impact and influence of both fellowship and nonfellowship-trained academic otolaryngologists in the United States. A secondary objective was to further understand the output among the larger fellowship fields.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was performed for active faculty otolaryngologists. A total of 1704 otolaryngologists were identified as faculty in residency training programs across the United States. Their h-index and publication data were gathered using the Scopus database. The data were obtained in August 2019 and analysis occurred in January 2020.

RESULTS

Head and neck surgical faculty (25.5%) had the highest representation with fellowship experience. Among all faculty, there was no statistical difference in the overall average h-index scores when comparing faculty that had fellowship training with those who did not (12.6 and 12.1, respectively, P = .498). Rhinologists had the highest publication output per year at 3.90. Among fellowship-trained faculty, the highest average h-index and total publications were seen in head & neck surgery, while facial plastics had the lowest averages (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, fellowship-trained faculty had a greater but not significant scholarly impact than nonfellowship faculty. Furthermore, there were significant variations in output among the various subspecialties of otolaryngology. Growing fields, as academic rhinology, are continuing to flourish in robust research productivity and output. This study further demonstrates the potential, growing influence of fellowship training on research involvement and academic advancement within the otolaryngology subspecialties.

UK paediatric surgical academic output (2005-2020): A cause for concern?

BACKGROUND

The publication record can be regarded as a key metric of the academic output of a craft surgical speciality with an almost exponential increase in the number of such publications worldwide over the past 20 years (Ashfaq et al. J Surg Res 2018;229:10-11). We aimed to examine and explore if this was the experience within UK paediatric surgery centres.

METHODS

The academic search engine Scopus™ (Elsevier) was used to track every paediatric surgeon's (NHS or University) publication history between Jan. 2005 - Dec. 2020. This was validated by an algorithmic search of PubMed™. The h-index (citations/publication), considered a validated metric of career academic output, was also calculated for each individual surgeon. A Field-Weighted Citation Index (Scopus™) (FWCI) was used to assess impact of individual publications. Textbooks, book chapters, abstracts, duplications ("double dipping") and output attributed to UK BAPS-CASS national studies were excluded. Some output(s), not considered as relevant to "paediatric surgery", was edited. Data are quoted as median(range).

RESULTS

During this 16-year period, there were 3838 publications identified from 26 centres with a "top ten" listing of those paediatric surgical units contributing over half the output (n = 2189, 57%). To look for evidence of trend(s) we analysed the output from these surgical centres in two 5-year periods (2005-9 and 2015-19) and showed an overall fall in output(s) - [730 (53.4%) to 645 (46.4%)] with 6/10 (60%) ' top ten ' centres here recording a reduction in publications. The median h-index of the 232 contributing paediatric surgical consultants was 12 (range 1-56). The best performing publication from the "top ten" centres had 96.5(51-442) citations with the FWCI being 4.5 (2.2 - 30.2).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights current paediatric surgery publication output metrics in UK centres. There is evidence of a relative reduction in outputs overall which is a cause for concern for the future, although individual publications from the 10 most active units in the UK remain highly cited. These findings may serve purpose in several ways: (i) UK paediatric surgical centre rankings may be helpful for guiding residency / trainee application; (ii) surgical research funding for the top performing units may be better facilitated and finally (iii) UK centres showing a ' fertile ground ' for nurturing and training paediatric surgeons with academic aspirations could be useful for future workforce planning.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Are Primarily Based on Low-Moderate-Quality Evidence

BACKGROUND

Owning to colorectal cancer's (CRC) high mortality, multiple societies developed screening guidelines.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the overall quality of CRC screening guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to review CRC screening guidelines for conflicts of interest (COI), recommendation quality and strength, external document review, use of patient representative, and recommendation age-as per Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards. In addition, recommendations were compared between guidelines/societies. Statistical analysis was conducted using R.

RESULTS

Twelve manuscripts were included in final analysis. Not all guidelines reported on COI, provided a grading method, underwent external review, or included patient representation. 14.5%, 34.2%, and 51.3% of recommendations were based on high-, moderate-, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 27.8%, 54.6%, and 17.5% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence and strong recommendations did not significantly differ across societies, nor were significant associations between publication year and evidence quality seen (P = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of the CRC guidelines contain aspects of the standards set forth by the IOM, there is an overall lack of adherence. As over 85% of recommendations are based on low-moderate quality evidence, further studies on CRC screening are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.

COVID 19 Scoping: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction:

The world has faced the pandemic of COVID-19 in the march of 2020 and still it continues to effect in 2021. Hence, in the present study we aim to evaluate the gulps in the research so that certain recommendations can be made for the future research. We conducted a scoping review of the COVID meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods:

Online data was collected from the search engines of EBSCO, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. The searched terms were COVID-19, CORONA, SARS-CoV-2, clinical features, Wuhan, etc. The study articles were collected that from January 2020 to February 2021. Based on the PRISMA guidelines, the meta-analysis was performed.

Results:

In the present study, we finalized 316 articles. On February 2020, the first article was published. We observed a spike in the meta-analysis later on. Most of the meta-analysis were issued in the virology and infection magazines. As expected, the majority studies were from Wuhan. The other countries that published the meta-analysis were the USA, the UK, and Italy. The studies included in each meta-analysis were nearly 25 and the subjects were approximately 16 thousand. However, we noticed a poor quality in majority of these meta-analysis and <10% of all the meta-analysis showed higher confidence.

Conclusion:

A poor quality of the meta-analysis has predominated the data and very few are of high quality. All the journal editors and the reviewing team should verify and thoroughly organize the protocol so that only high quality meta-analysis are encouraged.

The certainty of the evidence in oral health has not improved according to GRADE: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-epidemiological study was to provide an update of the certainty of the evidence in oral health by using the GRADE rating reported in oral health Cochrane systematic reviews (CSR).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

All interventional oral health CSR published between 2003-2021 were sourced. Study characteristics were extracted at the level of the CSR and the outcome/meta-analysis. One-hundred-five CSR were eligible and analysed.

RESULTS

Almost a third of CSR (n=67) were excluded as a GRADE rating was not available. The most prevalent type of primary studies included in the CSR were randomized studies (93.4%) and the most used measure of effect was the risk ratio (67.3%). Overall, the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE rating for all examined outcomes was very low/low (88%). The two most common reasons for downgrading the confidence in the evidence were study limitations (Risk of bias) and imprecision. The odds of moderate/high vs. low/very low-GRADE rating are higher for the primary compared to the secondary outcomes after adjusting for year and number of trials (OR 2.49; 95% CI: 1.09, 5.65; P=0.02). Per year (2010-2021 period) the odds of moderate/high vs. low/very low-GRADE rating decrease (OR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.90; P=0.01), and as the number of trials per comparison increase the odds of moderate/high vs. low/very low GRADE rating increase (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.25; P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of the evidence in oral health when assessed with the GRADE rating remains predominantly low or very low.