Gender Disparities in Academic Otolaryngology

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate representation of women in otolaryngology by examining authorship of research publications and presentations, awards, research grants, leadership, and membership in related organizations.

METHODS

Authorship was reviewed from articles published in three otolaryngology journals from 2000 through 2021 to assess the frequency and percentages of female and combination of male and female gender authorship. Gender was evaluated for poster and scientific abstract presentations from 2007 to 2021. Gender representation was reviewed for institutional and society leadership positions, award, and grant recipients in the American Laryngological Society (ALA). Changes in the frequency of female and combination of male and female gender authorship over time were examined with Cochran-Armitage test for trend.

RESULTS

A total of 16,921 articles, 1,017 presentations, 480 leadership positions, 129 president positions, and 1,137 awards and grants were studied. Women were first authors in 4,153 (24.9%) and last authors in 2,935 (17.8%) published articles for which gender could be determined. Women were first authors in 372 (37.4%) presentations and last authors in 199 (20.2%). Most presentations had a combination of male and female presentation authorship (630, 68%). Women held 69 (14.4%) leadership positions. Of the award and grant recipients, 327 (28.8%) were female. Significant trends were observed for increasing female representation (first authorship publications increased 69.9% from 2000 to 2020, first authorship presentations increased 73.9% from 2007 to 2013, p < 0.001; leadership and awards from 3% to 18% representation, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of women receiving awards and holding leadership positions is increasing. Efforts that promote gender diversity may further increase representation of women in otolaryngology literature and among the grant and award winners.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:2144-2152, 2024.

Being Part of an Editorial Board: Implications and Scope for Scientific Communication and Personal Academic Development

Objective

From my experience as a member of the editorial board of the journal Investigación y Educación en Enfermería, the implications and scope of participating in this entity and the mutual and reciprocal benefits of this academic interaction between members of the editorial board and the journal are explained.

Content synthesis

The key elements on operation, integration, tasks, and responsibilities of editorial boards to disseminate scientific research in different disciplines are analyzed and described, highlighting the rigor and commitment to academic ethics that allows guaranteeing the credibility of the contents published and topics addressed by a journal within a context of high competitiveness and risk of breaches of academic and scientific probity and ethics.

Conclusion

Integrating an editorial board requires developing a fundamental role that implies a series of commitments and challenges that must be addressed with professionalism and ethics to guarantee the quality and prestige of the academic publication. In this task, achievements and goals are reached for the journal, as well as academic benefits for the editorial board members.

Sources of funding for research articles in medical education journals from 1999 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Prior studies report that most published medical education research is unfunded. We sought to determine the extent and sources of funding for medical education research articles published in leading journals, and how these have changed in the last two decades.

METHODS

All research articles published in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019 were reviewed for funding declarations. Funding sources were categorised as: government; university; healthcare organisation; private not-for-profit organisation; and for-profit company. Time trends were analysed using the Cochran-Armitage test.

RESULTS

1822 articles were analysed. Over the aggregate 20-year period, 44% of all articles reported funding, with the proportion increasing from 30% in 1999 to 50% in 2019 (p < .001). The proportion of articles with government (10% to 16%, p = .049), university (6% to 17% p < .001), and not-for-profit funding sources (15% to 20%, p = .04) increased. Proportions of healthcare (3% to 4%, p = .45) and for-profit funding (2% to 1%, p = .25) did not significantly change with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 20 years, the proportion of funded published medical education research has significantly increased, as has funding from government, universities, and not-for-profit sources. This may assist researchers in identifying funders with a track record of supporting medical education research, and enhances transparency of where research funding in the field originates.

PubMed's core clinical journals filter: redesigned for contemporary clinical impact and utility

Objective

The Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) list, produced by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), has been used by clinicians and librarians for half a century for two main purposes: narrowing a literature search to clinically useful journals and identifying high priority titles for library collections. After documentation of low usage of the existing CCJ, a review was undertaken to assess current validity, followed by an update to current clinical needs.

Methods

As the subject coverage of the 50-year-old list had never been evaluated, the CCJ committee began its innovative step-wise approach by analyzing the existing subject scope. To determine whether clinical subjects had changed over the last half-century, the committee collected data on journal usage in hospitals and medical facilities, adding journal usage from Morning Report blogs recording the journal article citations used by physicians and residents in response to clinical questions. Patient-driven high-frequency diagnoses and subjects added contextual data by depicting the clinical environment.

Results

The analysis identified a total of 80 subjects and selected 241 journals for the updated Clinical Journals filter, based on actual clinical utility of each journal.

Discussion

These data-driven methods created a different framework for evaluating the structure and content of this filter. It is the real-world evidence needed to highlight CCJ clinical impact and push clinically useful journals to first page results. Since the new process resulted in a new product, the name warrants a change from Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) to Clinically Useful Journals (CUJ). Therefore, the redesigned NLM Core Clinical Journals/AIM set from this point forward will be referred to as Clinically Useful Journals (CUJ). The evidence-based process used to reframe evaluation of the clinical impact and utility of biomedical journals is documented in this article.

The P value - and its historical underpinnings - pro and con

The derivation and interpretation of P values derived from inferential testing remain somewhat vague and ambiguous in the minds of some researchers/editors/reviewers/readers. The British polymath Fisher famously averred: "the value for which P = 0.05, or 1 in 20, is 1.96 or nearly 2; it is convenient to take this point as a limit in judging whether a deviation is to be considered significant or not. Deviations exceeding twice the standard deviation are thus formally regarded as significant." This sometimes leads to an almost reductio ad absurdum mindset with an automatic discardment of studies with results where P > 0.05. It must be remembered that results may be negatively impacted by myriad factors that may be out of the researcher/s control, such as small sample sizes, small effects, bias, and random error. This paper briefly reviews the historical events leading to the acceptance of P ≤ 0.05 for statistical significance, the rationale behind the null hypothesis (H0), the meaning of P (and the potential for Type 1 and 2 Errors), α, β, the possibility of using non-0.05 cut-offs when studies are "trending toward statistical significance," and the importance of including confidence intervals (CIs) in results. P values are vital but must be tempered by judicial consideration of CI and study design. P is a probability spectrum and not simply a binary significant/non-significant statistical metric.

MeSH

95% confidence interval, biostatistics, P value.

Timing of submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health: Associations with the COVID-19 pandemic and editorial decisions

AIM

To determine if the timing of manuscript submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health (JPCH) changed following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to determine if the timing of manuscript submissions influenced editorial decisions.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of submissions to JPCH from 1 January 2015 to 1 August 2022 was performed. Regression models were used to explore the change over time. Editorial decisions were examined using a multinomial regression model with the three-category ordinal outcome of reject, revise and accept. All statistical models were fitted using a Bayesian approach and show 95% credible intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The analyses included 11 499 manuscript submissions between 2015 and 2022. The mean number of manuscript submissions increased by 17 papers per month (CI 15-19), with a larger 4-month long increase after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared of 86 submissions per month (CI 67-103). There was no clear effect of the pandemic on weekend submissions, mean difference in probability 0.003 (CI -0.021 to 0.026). Throughout the study period, the peak submission time was later in the day and was shifted +37 min later post-March 2020 (CI +22 to +52 min). Throughout the study period, submissions out-of-hours and on weekends were less likely to get an editorial decision of 'accept' or 'revise': odds ratio weekend versus weekday 0.87 (CI 0.78-0.97).

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic had a limited effect on the timing of manuscript submissions to JPCH. However, the timing of manuscript submission impacted the likelihood of a more positive editorial decision. While the time of manuscript submission is only one part of the research process, it is postulated that it may be associated with research quality.

[One hundred years of the Pan American Journal of Public Health: visualizing its contentCem anos da Revista Pan-Americana de Saúde Pública: visualização do seu conteúdo]

Objectives

Explore how the content of the articles published by the Pan American Journal of Public Health during its 100 years of existence has aligned with the key health issues of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was carried out, with visualization of its results. Information on articles published in the Journal was retrieved from PAHO's Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS) for the first 75 years and Scopus for the last 25 years, until February 2022; References to Governing Bodies documents and statements by the directors were used to establish PAHO's key themes.

Results

Initially, 12 573 publications were obtained and 9 289 were considered for analysis for the period 1922 to 1996, and 3 208 for the period 1997 to 2022. For the bibliometric analysis of the Scopus information, indicators such as the authors and their origin, language of publication, and number and origin of citations were considered. For the visualizations, publications were divided into five periods so that they coincided with the periods established for the analysis of PAHO's priority themes. Keyword co-occurrence maps were made to observe the evolution of published topics and relate them to public health approaches in each period.

Conclusion

The topics published in the Pan American Journal of Public Health and its precursor bulletins reflect the history of regional public health and its evolution over time, as well as the key health issues of the Pan American Health Organization.

The journal "La Tunisie Médicale": Soon in the Q2 Quartile, on the SCImago platform

The SCImago platform had just announced, at the beginning of 2022, the new position of the journal «La Tunisie Médicale» (ISSN: 0041-4131; IeSSN: 2724-7031) in the third quartile (Q3) of journals in the field. Medicine/General Medicine, with an SJR index (2021) of 0.29 and an Impact Score (2 years) of 0.53. As for the Scopus® platform, it reported for the journal «La Tunisie Médicale», a CiteScore 2021 of 0.8 (between 2018-2021: 514 citations and 630 documents) and a position at the 34th percentile. To improve its notoriety indices, the new editorial team of the journal "La Tunisie Médicale" will immediately: 1. Select research manuscripts with a high level of evidence; 2. Invite leaders in scientific biomedical writing to actively participate in its special thematic issues; 3. Mobilize an international team of competent, available and committed reviewers.

Let's save the indexing of the journal "La Tunisie Médicale"

As part of the strategy to safeguard the indexing of the review «La Tunisie Médicale», and the consolidation of its scientific reputation, in Tunisia, the Maghreb and Africa, the new editorial team reported the lessons of a recent bibliometric audit for the management of manuscripts submitted to the journal «La Tunisie Médicale» during the period 2015-2019. During this five-year study, 2376 papers were received by the journal "La Tunisie Médicale", 87% of which came from Tunisia, particularly Cardiology, Pathological Anatomy and Cytology, and Pneumology. If 17% of the manuscripts persisted as «case reports», only 7% were summaries of the literature. During this five-year period, 923 reviewers were mobilized, and the acceptance rate was 32%. Based on this editorial audit and taking into consideration the difficulties of scientific publishing, the plan to safeguard the indexing of our national journal and its resilience should consist of the following measures: 1. Submission development scientific manuscripts, at a rate of 1000 papers per year, by the year 2025; 2. Ensure representation of all health science disciplines on the editorial team; 3. Prioritize the publication of research articles, having a better chance of citation; 4. Enrich the base of readers by more approved reviewers; 5. Establish a didactic reviewing model, centered on the development of authors' skills and their support.

Web of Science's Citation Median Metrics Overcome the Major Constraints of the Journal Impact Factor

There are many metrics to evaluate the performance and status of journals. Among these, the journal impact factor (JIF) has become the dominant metric. The influence of JIF is illustrated by its widespread use to evaluate academic status, compensation, and funding decisions. However, as noted by Clarivate Analytics, the parent company of the Web of Science (WoS), the JIF should not be used without careful attention to the many phenomena that influence citation rates. To facilitate transparency, Clarivate Analytics provides all data used to determine the JIF. In addition, WoS provides other metrics for journal evaluation, including the article citation median and the review citation median. These metrics are represented as medians to minimize the confounding influence of a small number of highly cited articles that may occur when data are represented as means. Another feature of these WoS metrics is that data are separated according to different publication types of article (original research and review). To systematically compare these selected metrics, we used the data provided on the WoS web site to analyze 25 top ranked cardiovascular journals in the same mode as represented in the WoS citation distribution window. The results indicate that the article citation median and review citation median overcome several concerns that have been raised about the JIF and seem to provide enhanced objectivity as an indicator of journal impact in publishing original research and reviews. Therefore, we advocate that these additional WoS metrics might be preferentially considered as indicators of journal performance.

Relationship between European postgraduate programme accreditation and national research output: The case of the Network of Erasmus-Based European Orthodontic Postgraduate Programmes (NEBEOP) in orthodontics. A bibliometric study

AIMS

To assess in each European country the correlation between the number of Network of Erasmus-Based European Orthodontic Postgraduate Programmes (NEBEOP) members and orthodontic research activity. Secondary objectives were to describe and quantify Europe's orthodontic research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles published between 2014 and 2018 in 4 major orthodontic journals (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics, The Angle Orthodontist, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research) and oral presentation abstracts of five European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses were analysed. For each European country, the total number of orthodontic programmes and NEBEOP memberships were collected. Descriptive statistics were performed, and Spearman correlation coefficients and risk ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

2039 articles and 261 oral presentation abstracts were included. Correlation coefficients between national number of publications, oral presentations, sum of these, all adjusted for population, and number of NEBEOP members in each country were 0.64, 0.65 and 0.62, respectively. Risk ratios were all above 1 and statistically significant for number of NEBEOP memberships per country, indicating positive associations with national orthodontic research productivity. Europe accounted for 30.5% of publications and 68.6% of oral presentations at EOS congresses during this period. European orthodontic research was not evenly distributed, since 9 countries were responsible for around 80% of the output.

CONCLUSIONS

A positive association was found between number of NEBEOP programmes and national research activity. These results could be an additional argument to support similar pan-European initiatives and guidelines for postgraduate education, not only in orthodontics but in all other dental specialties.

The element of family medicine in the mega journal of the family medicine specialty: A bibliometric analysis of the journal, Chinese General Practice

BACKGROUND

With the evolving specialization of modern medicine, family medicine (FM), also known as general practice, is relatively late in being recognized as a formal specialty in most countries of the world. Because many non-FM specialists were recruited into the new specialty in the early stages of FM specialization, the contents of FM specialty journals might, to an extent, reflect the development of the FM specialization.

METHODS

In this study, the voluminous journal, Chinese General Practice, which is regarded as the most representative specialty journal, was chosen and analyzed to illustrate the current situation of FM in China. A total of 878 articles, relating to the journal, Chinese General Practice in 2018, were retrieved from the publisher's web site and the original articles were categorized into FM- and non-FM- related articles by 3 board-certified FM doctors. Furthermore, the first authors, as well as the institutions and regions where the first authors worked, and their related specialties, were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 634 original articles, 252 (39.7%) articles were FM related. Only 41 FM-related articles were written by authors working at FM departments: 3 at community health service centers, 29 at hospitals, and 9 at universities. Of the 382 non-FM related articles, 159 articles dealt with the topic of internal medicine, followed by traditional Chinese medicine (36), obstetrics and gynecology (28), neurology (27), pediatrics (27), and surgery (21).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, FM publications in China in the study year, as exemplified by Chinese General Practice, were mostly contributed by non-FM authors dealing with non-FM topics. A transition to more FM-oriented development might be anticipated in the near future.

Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers

The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science movement. Constructive reviewer comments are increasingly recognised as scholarly contributions which should meet certain ethics and reporting standards. The Publons platform, which is now part of the Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), credits validated reviewer accomplishments and serves as an instrument for selecting and promoting the best reviewers. All authors with relevant profiles may act as reviewers. Adherence to research reporting standards and access to bibliographic databases are recommended to help reviewers draft evidence-based and detailed comments.

Social media platforms: a primer for researchers

Social media platforms play an increasingly important role in research, education, and clinical practice. As an inseparable part of open science, these platforms may increase the visibility of research outputs and facilitate scholarly networking. The editors who ethically moderate Twitter, Facebook, and other popular social media accounts for their journals may engage influential authors in the post-publication communication and expand societal implications of their publications. Several social media aggregators track and generate alternative metrics which can be used by researchers for visualizing trending articles in their fields. More and more publishers showcase their achievements by displaying such metrics along with traditional citations. The Scopus database also tracks both metrics to offer a comprehensive coverage of the indexed articles' impact. Understanding the advantages and limitations of various social media channels is essential for actively contributing to the post-publication communication, particularly in research-intensive fields such as rheumatology.

Monitoring Information Flow on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

The flow of information on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is intensifying, requiring concerted efforts of all scholars. Peer-reviewed journals as established channels of scientific communications are struggling to keep up with unprecedented high submission rates. Preprint servers are becoming increasingly popular among researchers and authors who set priority over their ideas and research data by pre-publication archiving of their manuscripts on these professional platforms. Most published articles on COVID-19 are now archived by the PubMed Central repository and available for searches on LitCovid, which is a newly designed hub for specialist searches on the subject. Social media platforms are also gaining momentum as channels for rapid dissemination of COVID-19 information. Monitoring, evaluating and filtering information flow through the established and emerging scholarly platforms may improve the situation with the pandemic and save lives.

To Work at Clinics or at Hospitals? Analysis of Family Physician Recruitment Advertising in Taiwan

Family physicians act as gatekeepers of the healthcare system and have an indispensable role in providing holistic care in the primary care system. While previous studies had focused on the geographic maldistribution of family physicians, the current study investigated the distribution of job opportunities for family physicians by analyzing recruitment advertisements posted in medical association journals, as an indirect way to observe the marketplace demand for physicians. We collected all the recruitment advertisements for family physicians in the twelve issues of the Taiwan Medical Journal, the official organ of the Taiwan Medical Association, in 2018. In contrast to 124 new trainees annually, 739 advertisements for family physicians were posted within the entire year. After eliminating repeated advertisements, there were 302 distinct advertisements, of which hospitals accounted for 18.9% (n = 57). The job opportunities at hospitals were offered mainly by regional hospitals (n = 26) and community hospitals (n = 29), but only two by medical centers. Family physicians in Taiwan were in great demand not only by primary care clinics but also by hospitals. The role of family physicians in hospitals is worth further study.

Online Registries for Researchers: Using ORCID and SciENcv

The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) registry helps resolve name ambiguity by assigning persistent unique identifiers that automatically link to a researcher's publications, grants, and other activities. This article provides an overview of ORCID and its benefits, citing several examples of its use in cancer and nursing journals. The article also briefly describes My NCBI and the Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae (SciENcv) and its connection to ORCID.

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

Mapping epidemiology's past to inform its future: metaknowledge analysis of epidemiologic topics in leading journals, 1974-2013

An empiric perspective on what epidemiology has studied over time might inform discussions about future directions for the discipline. We aimed to identify the main areas of epidemiologic inquiry and determine how they evolved over time in 5 high-impact epidemiologic journals. We analyzed the titles and abstracts of 20,895 articles that were published between 1974 and 2013. In 5 time periods that reflected approximately equal numbers of articles, we identified the main topics by clustering terms based on co-occurrence. Infectious disease and cardiovascular disease epidemiology were the prevailing topics over the 5 periods. Cancer epidemiology was a major topic from 1974 to 2001 but disappeared thereafter. Nutritional epidemiology gained relative importance from 1974 to 2013. Environmental epidemiology appeared during 1996-2001 and continued to be important, whereas 2 clusters related to methodology and meta-analysis in genetics appeared during 2008-2013. Several areas of epidemiology, including injury or psychiatric epidemiology, did not make an appearance as major topics at any time. In an ancillary analysis of 6 high-impact general medicine journals, we found patterns of epidemiologic articles that were overall consistent with the findings in epidemiologic journals. This metaknowledge investigation allowed identification of the dominant topics in and conversely those that were absent from 5 major epidemiologic journals. We discuss implications for the field.

Choosing the right journal for your systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as an aid to decision making in health care has led to an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. When selecting a target journal for publication, authors generally seek out higher impact factor journals. This study aimed to determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to their impact factors (>2.63) and to determine whether those journals require tools that aim to improve SR reporting and meta-analyses.

METHODS

In our cross-sectional study showing how to choose the right journal for a SR, we selected and analysed scientific journals available in a digital library with a minimum Institute for Scientific Information impact factor of 2.63.

RESULTS

We analysed 622 scientific journals, 435 (69.94%) of which publish SRs. Of those 435 journals, 135 (21.60%) provide instructions for authors that mention SRs. Three hundred journals (48.34%) do not discuss criteria for article acceptance in the instructions for authors section, but do publish SRs. Only 118 (27.00%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs meet specific reporting guidelines, making interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. There is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance of SRs for publication.

What do popular Spanish women's magazines say about caesarean section? A 21-year survey

Objectives

Caesarean section (CS) rates are increasing worldwide and maternal request is cited as one of the main reasons for this trend. Women's preferences for route of delivery are influenced by popular media, including magazines. We assessed the information on CS presented in Spanish women's magazines.

Design

Systematic review.

Setting

Women's magazines printed from 1989 to 2009 with the largest national distribution.

Sample

Articles with any information on CS.

Methods

Articles were selected, read and abstracted in duplicate. Sources of information, scientific accuracy, comprehensiveness and women's testimonials were objectively extracted using a content analysis form designed for this study.

Main outcome measures

Accuracy, comprehensiveness and sources of information.

Results

Most (67%) of the 1223 selected articles presented exclusively personal opinion/birth stories, 12% reported the potential benefits of CS, 26% mentioned the short-term and 10% mentioned the long-term maternal risks, and 6% highlighted the perinatal risks of CS. The most frequent short-term risks were the increased time for maternal recovery (n = 86), frustration/feelings of failure (n = 83) and increased post-surgical pain (n = 71). The most frequently cited long-term risks were uterine rupture (n = 57) and the need for another CS in any subsequent pregnancy (n = 42). Less than 5% of the selected articles reported that CS could increase the risks of infection (n = 53), haemorrhage (n = 31) or placenta praevia/accreta in future pregnancies (n = 6). The sources of information were not reported by 68% of the articles.

Conclusions

The portrayal of CS in Spanish women's magazines is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not provide adequate important information to help the readership to understand the real benefits and risks of this route of delivery.

[Scientific publications: a resource for the physician's intellectual development]

The physician's professional life involves reading and analysis of scientific journals, regardless of the specialization field. The hospital and academic areas lead to the scientific-literary activity development. The aim of this editorial is to make some reflections about the way a physician reaches intellectual development, through the creation of a culture of writing and reading scientific publications.

Use of Clavien-Dindo classification in reporting and grading complications after urological surgical procedures: analysis of 2010 to 2012

PURPOSE

We determined the use of the Clavien-Dindo classification in urological articles. We also assessed the recent trend in the use of different postoperative complication reporting classifications by authors in major journals from 2010 to 2012.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed all articles from 5 major urological journals published between January 2010 and October 2012. All studies reporting surgical outcomes were included in analysis and individually assessed after retrieving the full text. We recorded the use of complication classifications with particular emphasis on the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

A total of 907 articles mentioned surgical outcomes, of which 137 reported no complications. A descriptive classification was the most common method (483 of 770 articles or 62.7%), followed by the Clavien-Dindo classification (256 of 770 or 33.3%). Use of the Clavien-Dindo classification in articles from all 5 journals that discussed surgical outcomes increased from 21.4% in 2010 to 50.2% in 2012. Of the 770 articles 287 (37.3%) used any standardized criteria for surgical outcome reporting in 2010 to 2012. Of the 287 articles that reported surgical outcomes the Clavien-Dindo classification was used in 256 (89.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of classification systems was seen in the most recently published articles. When a system was adopted by authors, the Clavien-Dindo classification was used most frequently. While there has been increased use of standardized reporting systems in articles mentioning surgical complications, there is room for increased implementation.

Design and level of evidence of studies published in two Brazilian medical journals recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science database

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES

The level of evidence and methodological quality of articles published in medical journals are important aids for clinicians in decision-making and also affect journals' impact factor. Although systematic reviews (SR) are considered to represent the highest level of evidence, their methodological quality is not homogeneous and they need to be as carefully assessed as other types of study. This study aimed to assess the design and level of evidence of articles published in 2007, in two recently indexed Brazilian journals (Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira), and to evaluate the methodological quality of the SRs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Descriptive study developed in the Brazilian Cochrane Center, Universidade Federal de São Paulo.

METHODS

All 289 published articles were classified according to types of study design and level of evidence. The SRs were critically appraised by two evaluators using the AMSTAR tool.

RESULTS

The most frequent design types were cross-sectional studies (39.9%), case reports (15.8%), experimental studies (10.8%) and narrative reviews (7.4%). According to the Oxford criteria, 25.6% of the articles were classified as level 4 or 5 evidence, while 2.8% were level 1. SRs represented only 2% of the published articles and their methodological quality scores were low.

CONCLUSIONS

The main design types among the published papers were observational and experimental studies and narrative reviews. SRs accounted for a small proportion of the articles and had low methodological scores. Brazilian medical journals need to encourage publication of greater numbers of clinically relevant papers of high methodological quality.

Duplicate Publications in Korean medical journals indexed in KoreaMed

Duplicate publication is considered unethical. It has several negative impacts. To estimate the frequency and characteristics of duplicate publications in Korean medical journals, we reviewed some portion of Korean journal articles. Among 9,030 articles that are original articles indexed in KoreaMed from January to December 2004, 455 articles (5%) were chosen by random sampling. PubMed, Google scholar, KMbase, and KoreaMed were searched by two librarians. Three authors reviewed titles, abstracts, and full text of index articles and suspected articles independently. Point of disagreement were reconciled by discussion. Criteria for a duplicate publication defined by editors of cardiothoracic journals and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors were used. A total of 455 articles were evaluated, of which 27 (5.93%) index articles were identified with 29 duplicate articles. Among 27 index articles, 1 was quadruple publication and 26 were double publications. Of 29 duplicated articles, 19 were classified as copy, 4 as fragmentation, and 6 as disaggregation. The proportion of duplicate publications in Korean medical journals appears to be higher than expected. Education on publication ethics to researchers is needed.