Search

Introduction: This study presents a global research scenario in the broad domain of osteoarthritis (OA) research, using quantitative and qualitative publication and citation indicators. Methods: The study is based on 45,368 global publications, sourced from the Scopus bibliographical database, covering three decades (1994–2023). We studied the performance of the top 12 developed and top 12 developing countries. The key countries, organizations and authors at national and international levels were identified. The broad subject areas and key journals contributing to global OA research were delineated, besides identifying the broad characteristics of highly cited papers in the field. Results: The United States and China were the most productive countries, while the Netherlands and Canada made the largest citation impact. Harvard Medical School and the University of Sydney made the most contribution, while Boston University and Pfizer Inc., USA registered the highest citation impact. Hunter DJ and Guermazi A were the most productive authors, while Lohmander LS, and Hochberg MC registered the highest citation impact. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (n = 4879) and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 786) published the maximum papers, while Arthritis and Rheumatism and Nature Reviews Rheumatology registered the largest citation impact. The highly cited papers with 100 or more citations constituted 6.25% of the total publications. Conclusions: There has been a systematic growth of publications on OA. The research on OA was mainly done in developed countries, with the maximum publications coming from the United States of America, China and Canada. The most impactful publications on OA were from the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The formation of an academic field is evidenced by many factors, including the growth of relevant research articles and the increasing impact of highly cited publications. Building upon recent scoping reviews of journal publications in STEM education, this study aimed to provide a systematic review of high impact empirical studies in STEM education to gain insights into the development of STEM education research paradigms. Through a search of the Web of Science core database, we identified the top 100 most-cited empirical studies focusing on STEM education that were published in journals from 2000 to 2021 and examined them in terms of various aspects, including the journals where they were published, disciplinary content coverage, research topics and methods, and authorship's nationality/region and profession. The results show that STEM education continues to gain more exposure and varied disciplinary content with an increasing number of high impact empirical studies published in journals in various STEM disciplines. High impact research articles were mainly authored by researchers in the West, especially the United States, and indicate possible "hot" topics within the broader field of STEM education. Our analysis also revealed the increased participation and contributions from researchers in diverse fields who are working to formulate research agendas in STEM education and the nature of STEM education scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Presently, there are six undergraduate HRSA-funded MCH pipeline training programs (MCHPTP) in the nation and they have gained significant momentum since inception by recruiting, training and mentoring undergraduate students in a comprehensive MCH-focused approach. This article describes the outcomes from the 6 training programs; and primarily Baylor College of Medicine–Texas Southern University (BCM–TSU's) collaborative strategy focusing on the MCH research training and outcomes, which align with HRSA's MCH bureau's missions. Description: Each MCHPTP offers trainees interdisciplinary MCH research experiences through intra/inter-institutional collaborations and partnerships, but BCM–TSU's MCHPTP was the only one with the primary focus to be research. As a case study, the BCM–TSU Program developed an innovative research curriculum integrated with MCH Foundations Course that comprised 2 hour weekly meetings. Students were split into collaborative research groups of 4–5 students, with multidisciplinary peer-mentors, clinical fellows and MCH research faculty from institutions at the world—renowned Texas Medical Center. Assessment: Since the inception of the MCH mentorship programs, all six MCHPTPs have enrolled up to 1890 trainees and/or interns. BCM–TSU Program trainees are defined as undergraduate students in their 1st or 2nd year of college while research interns are upper classmen in their 3rd or 4th year of college. The case study showed that BCM–TSU Program trainees demonstrated outstanding accomplishments in the area of research through primary and co-authorships of 13 peer-reviewed journal publications by 78 trainees, over a period of 3 years, in addition to dozens of presentations at local, regional and national conferences. Conclusions: The research productivity of students in the six MCHPTPs is strongly indicative of the success of integrating MCH research mentoring into MCH didactic training. The development of a diverse and robust MCH mentorship program promotes and strengthens research activities in areas of high priority such as addressing health disparities in MCH morbidity and mortality in the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]