Search

BackgroundThe number of citations received is considered an index of study quality and impact. We aimed to examine the factors associated with the number of citations of published articles, focusing on the article length.MethodsOriginal human studies published in the first trimester of 2006 in 5 major General Medicine journals were analyzed with regard to the number of authors and of author-affiliated institutions, title and abstract word count, article length (number of print pages), number of bibliographic references, study design, and 2006 journal impact factor (JIF). A multiple linear regression model was employed to identify the variables independently associated with the number of article citations received through January 2012.ResultsOn univariate analysis the JIF, number of authors, article length, study design (interventional/observational and prospective/retrospective), title and abstract word count, number of author-affiliated institutions, and number of references were all associated with the number of citations received. On multivariate analysis with the logarithm of citations as the dependent variable, only article length [regression coefficient: 14.64 (95% confidence intervals: (5.76-23.50)] and JIF [3.37 (1.80-4.948)] independently predicted the number of citations. The variance of citations explained by these parameters was 51.2%.ConclusionIn a sample of articles published in major General Medicine journals, in addition to journal impact factors, article length and number of authors independently predicted the number of citations. This may reflect a higher complexity level and quality of longer and multi-authored studies.

OBJECTIVE: Biomedical literature is increasingly enriched with literature reviews and meta-analyses. We sought to assess the understanding of statistical terms routinely used in such studies, among researchers. METHODS: An online survey posing 4 clinically-oriented multiple-choice questions was conducted in an international sample of randomly selected corresponding authors of articles indexed by PubMed. RESULTS: A total of 315 unique complete forms were analyzed (participation rate 39.4%), mostly from Europe (48%), North America (31%), and Asia/Pacific (17%). Only 10.5% of the participants answered correctly all 4 "interpretation" questions while 9.2% answered all questions incorrectly. Regarding each question, 51.1%, 71.4%, and 40.6% of the participants correctly interpreted statistical significance of a given odds ratio, risk ratio, and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals respectively, while 43.5% correctly replied that no statistical model can adjust for clinical heterogeneity. Clinicians had more correct answers than non-clinicians (mean score ± standard deviation: 2.27±1.06 versus 1.83±1.14, p

INTRODUCTION: The epidemiology and antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, underscoring the need for novel antibiotics, particularly against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Telavancin is a bactericidal lipoglycopeptide with potent activity against Gram-positive pathogens. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and synthesize the available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating telavancin in the treatment of patients with infections due to Gram-positive organisms with the methodology of meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six RCTs comparing telavancin with vancomycin were included; 4 (2229 patients) referred to complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) and 2 (1503 patients) to hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). Regarding cSSTIs, telavancin and vancomycin showed comparable efficacy in clinically evaluable patients (odds ratio [OR] =1.10 [95% confidence intervals: 0.82-1.48]). Among patients with MRSA infection, telavancin showed higher eradication rates (OR=1.71 [1.08-2.70]) and a trend towards better clinical response (OR=1.55 [0.93-2.58]). Regarding HAP, telavancin was non-inferior to vancomycin in terms of clinical response in two Phase III RCTs; mortality rates for the pooled trials were comparable with telavancin (20%) and vancomycin (18.6%). Pooled data from cSSTIs and HAP studies on telavancin 10 mg/kg indicated higher rates of serum creatinine increases (OR=2.22 [1.38-3.57]), serious adverse events (OR=1.53 [1.05-2.24]), and adverse event-related withdrawals (OR=1.49 [1.14-1.95]) among telavancin recipients. CONCLUSION: Telavancin might be an alternative to vancomycin in cases of difficult-to-treat MRSA infections. The potent antistaphylococcal activity of telavancin should be weighted against the potential for nephrotoxicity.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have examined the effect of psychological variables on surgical recovery, but no definite conclusion has been reached yet. We sought to examine whether psychological factors influence early surgical recovery. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus and PsycINFO databases to identify studies examining the association of preoperative psychological variables or interventions with objectively measured, early surgical outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 16 eligible studies, 15 of which reported a significant association between at least one psychological variable or intervention and an early postoperative outcome. However, most studies also reported psychological factors not influencing surgical recovery and there was significant heterogeneity across the studies. Overall, trait and state anxiety, state anger, active coping, subclinical depression, and intramarital hostility appeared to complicate recovery, while dispositional optimism, religiousness, anger control, low pain expectations, and external locus of control seemed to promote healing. Psychological interventions (guided relaxation, couple support visit, and psychiatric interview) also appeared to favor recovery. Psychological factors unrelated to surgical outcomes included loneliness, perceived social support, anger expression, and trait anger. CONCLUSION: Although the heterogeneity of the available evidence precludes any safe conclusions, psychological variables appear to be associated with early surgical recovery; this association could bear important implications for clinical practice. Large clinical trials and further analyses are needed to precisely evaluate the contribution of psychology in surgical recovery.