Search

The objective of this work is to identify the different names, positions, and roles of editorial board members (EBMs) of journals in the Information Science and Library Science (ISLS) field of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and to establish a classification of the different roles to improve communication between editors and researchers. Among the 86 journals included in the ISLS field, the first and last names, position, and institutional affiliation of each EBM were extracted from 84 journals that allowed access to committee information. The information was standardized, and the positions were classified by consensus into major groups according to the role they play in the journals. The 84 journals included 4,122 positions held by EBMs, distributed in 201 positions and classified into 11 broad categories. The majority of positions were included in the Editorial Board category (n = 1,516), followed by Editorial Advisory Board (n = 734) and Associate Editor (n = 566). The journals were published by 36 publishers, with Elsevier and Taylor & Francis contributing the most journals (11 each). The journals in which the EBMs had the highest percentage of foreign members were those published in the Netherlands. This study provides a picture of the broad distribution of the roles and terminological titles that EBMs have in Information Science and Library Science journals. Because of this diversity, it is advisable to develop a guide to good editorial practices that includes both a description of the complex range of roles performed by EBMs and a unified nomenclature for these universal positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implant dentistry is subject to major economic pressures as a result of the growth in the manufacturing and commercialization of dental implants. Purpose: To examine research funding in implant dentistry by means of a bibliometric analysis of articles indexed in Web of Science (WoS) published during the period 2008‐2017. Materials and Methods: The search was conducted applying the truncated term "implant*" in the WoS dentistry area. Only items labeled as "article" or "review" were selected. Records were manually refined and normalized to unify terms and to remove typographical, transcription, and/or indexing errors. Results: A total of 14 255 records were identified for analysis. About 5002 of the 14 255 published works received funding. Of these, 85.9% of funded research articles received at least one citation. Of the 7733 funding entities mentioned, 29.8% were government entities, 25% NGOs and Foundations, 23.7% private companies, 19.6% academic entities, and 1.9% hospitals and research centers. Clinical Oral Implants Research and the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants published the highest numbers of funded articles. Conclusions: This study revealed an overall increase in the funding of research in implant dentistry in recent years. Funded articles were cited more frequently and published in journals with higher impact factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The management of comorbidity and multimorbidity poses major challenges to health services around the world. Analysis of scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity is limited in the biomedical literature. This study aimed to map global scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity to understand the maturity and growth of the area during the past decades. Methods and findings: This was a cross-sectional analysis of the Web of Science. Searches were run from inception until November 8, 2016. We included research articles or reviews with no restrictions by language or publication date. Data abstraction was done by one researcher. A process of standardization was conducted by two researchers to unify different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription, and/or indexing errors. All potential discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of papers, citations, signatures, most prolific authors, countries, journals and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words were presented. During the period 1970–2016, 85994 papers (64.0% in 2010–2016) were published in 3500 journals. There was wide diversity in the specialty of the journals, with psychiatry (16558 papers; 19.3%), surgery (9570 papers; 11.1%), clinical neurology (9275 papers; 10.8%), and general and internal medicine (7622 papers; 8.9%) the most common. PLOS One (1223 papers; 1.4%), the Journal of Affective Disorders (1154 papers; 1.3%), the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (727 papers; 0.8%), the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (634 papers; 0.7%) and Obesity Surgery (588 papers; 0.7%) published the largest number of papers. 168 countries were involved in the production of papers. The global productivity ranking was headed by the United States (37624 papers), followed by the United Kingdom (7355 papers), Germany (6899 papers) and Canada (5706 papers). Twenty authors who published 100 or more papers were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Harvard Medical School, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, National Taiwan Normal University and China Medical University. The 50 most cited papers (“citation classics” with at least 1000 citations) were published in 20 journals, led by JAMA Psychiatry (11 papers) and JAMA (10 papers). The most cited papers provided contributions focusing on methodological aspects (e.g. Charlson Comorbidity Index, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, APACHE prognostic system), but also important studies on chronic diseases (e.g. epidemiology of mental disorders and its correlates by the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey, Fried’s frailty phenotype or the management of obesity). Conclusions: Ours is the first analysis of global scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity. Scientific production in the field is increasing worldwide with research leadership of Western countries, most notably, the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the scientific journals, being part of the editorial boards, including the journals' members and chief editors, involves holding positions of power and responsibility that affect the running of a journal. Until now, these positions have usually been held by men in most scientific disciplines. In this study, the gender composition in the editorial board members (EBMs) and editor-in-chief (ECs) of the 45 Women's Studies journals classified in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) was analyzed. The following indicators were calculated: the gender distribution of ECs and EBMs by journal, publisher, country, and quartile of the journal in the JCR; the geographical area of the members; and the gender distribution of the authors of papers grouped by journal, and geographical area. The gender distribution of the ECs was 92 % women, while that of the EBMs was 82.2 %. Regarding the articles and reviews published during 2019, a 72.4 % were signed by women. These results display an "inverted truncated pyramid": the higher the level of decision-making positions is, the higher the percentage of women. On the other hand, the results by geographical area shows an Anglo-Saxon and European bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective was to compare the impact factor to 2 years of self-citations (IF2Y) with impact factor 2 years without self-citations (IF2YWS) and IF2Y with the impact factor to 5 years (IF5Y) as well as IF2YWS with SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) about journals where they were published articles of excellence in smoking by Spanish authors in the period 2008-2012. The search was conducted in the SCI-E and the SSCI-E on November 25, 2013. Were selected documents that had the h index of the strategy global sample (number of articles that have at least that number of citations) to search using the descriptors "smok *" OR "tobac *". A total of 69 articles by Spanish authors were recovered from 55 journals. We found an almost perfect correlation between IF2Y and IF2YWS, reaching IF2Y the highest values. We also found an almost perfect correlation between IF2Y and IF5Y with good agreement, reaching FI5a highest values with a great variability and heterogeneity between journals. The correlation between IF2YWS and SJR is poor with a low concordance. Systematically, the IF2YWS have always higher values than SJR and both indicators measure, therefore, different aspects, not be extrapolated or interchangeable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The objective of this study was to investigate the funding received by papers of excellence on smoking at the global level between 2010 and 2014 through the Web of Science, and to find out if funding is associated with greater impact. Method. We searched the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) through the Web of Science platform on 20 May 2015 (typology consisting of originals and reviews for the period from 2010 to 2014). The search strategy was “smok*” OR “tobac*.” To select the papers of excellence, we picked those that had an h index (i.e., number of articles having at least that many citations) from among the papers in the overall sample generated by the strategy. Results. Of the 193 papers of excellence on smoking that were identified, 158 had received funding from 279 different financing institutions that intervened 522 times. The funding came primarily from government agencies, private foundations, and the pharmaceutical industry. Public funding declined and private funding increased over the years included in the analysis. Receipt of funding was not associated with greater impact at a later date. Conclusions. Most of the papers of excellence on smoking received external funding primarily from government agencies, private foundations, and the pharmaceutical industry. Public funding has decreased, while private funding has increased. Receipt of funding was not associated with greater impact at a later date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a scientific research on patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) by analyzing data on the bibliographic analysis of articles published from 2003 to 2012. Mentioned is the use of Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) database from online Web of Science (WOS) platform. Data from "Multiple Sclerosis and Multiple Sclerosis Journal" is also evaluated.

Background Research collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades. Methods This was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta- analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded. Results Overall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland). Conclusions Our analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries publishing meta-analyses of randomized trials in high impact medical journals. This valuable information may be used to strengthen scientific capacity for collaboration and to help to promote a global agenda for future research of excellence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To discover the features associated with personal and professional lives of university teachers, in the area of health sciences in the "Comunidad Valenciana" for the period 2003-2007, to learn if they contribute to a greater or lesser scientific productivity. Were interviewed in depth 30 teachers aged between 30 and 60 years in order to identify factors that hamper productivity. Have more difficulties to publish scientific papers, teachers less productive. Represent obstacles: the labor problems, the difficulty to obtain science projects and to publish in certain journals, to balance teaching and research, care work in hospitals, the maternity and children. Although the two groups of large and small producers point to the same problems in their work and personal life, are perceived more difficulties in the group of less productive. Most offer the same kind of solutions to reduce the gender distance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta‐analyses (MAs) are of great importance for basing clinical decisions. However, misleading interpretations may result when informed decisions rest on biased review papers with methodological issues. To evaluate which treatment is optimal, an overview was made of SRs and MAs to establish the quality and certainty of meta‐evidence published on the efficacy of laser‐based refractive surgery techniques for treating myopia in adults. A search was made in five databases and was updated using Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed appliances up to April 2021; SRs with or without MAs were included. Methodological quality was appraised using the AMSTAR‐2 tool. The best available reviews were summarized using the GRADE approach. The corrected covered area (CCA) was used to determine the degree of over‐representation of publications. The risk of bias of the primary studies was disclosed visually. Thirty‐six studies published between 2003 and 2021 were included. Twenty SRs (56%) were conducted in China. The most studied comparisons were SMILE versus FS‐LASIK (19%) and FS‐LASIK versus MM‐LASIK (11%). Of the 251 overlapping index publications, 165 were unique (CCA = 0.015%), representing a negligible risk of skewed reporting. The AMSTAR‐2 tool showed most SRs to have critically low or low quality. Nine reviews presented moderate quality. The GRADE approach of the 41 a priori outcomes evidenced critically low and low certainty of evidence. Only the spherical equivalent refraction changes at 12 months between LASEK and PRK showed moderate certainty of evidence, favouring PRK (mean difference 0.06, 95%CI [−0.02 to 0.14], I2 = 0%; p ≥ 0.05). Index trials among less biased reviews are prone to selection, performance and reporting bias. The appraised techniques exhibit comparable results in terms of efficacy. There is moderate certainty of evidence in favour of the use of PRK over LASEK in terms of the spherical equivalent refraction error changes at 1 year of follow‐up. Most appraised SRs presented methodological flaws in critical domains, resulting in a low to critically low certainty of evidence after GRADE appraisal. Therefore, investigators need to study and compare the different laser‐based refractive techniques to provide better evidence‐based medicine. Further well‐designed, high‐quality clinical trials and SRs are needed to reappraise the current findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) has been promoted as an important research methodology for determining the efficiency of healthcare technology and guiding medical decision-making. Our aim was to characterize the collaborative patterns of CEA conducted over the past two decades in Spain. Methods and Findings: A systematic analysis was carried out with the information obtained through an updated comprehensive literature review and from reports of health technology assessment agencies. We identified CEAs with outcomes expressed as a time-based summary measure of population health (e.g. quality-adjusted life-years or disabilityadjusted life-years), conducted in Spain and published between 1989 and 2011. Networks of coauthorship and institutional collaboration were produced using PAJEK software. One-hundred and thirty-one papers were analyzed, in which 526 authors and 230 institutions participated. The overall signatures per paper index was 5.4. Six major groups (one with 14 members, three with 7 members and two with 6 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were generally affiliated with the private-for-profit sector (e.g. consulting firms and the pharmaceutical industry). The private-for-profit sector mantains profuse collaborative networks including public hospitals and academia. Collaboration within the public sector (e.g. healthcare administration and primary care) was weak and fragmented. Conclusions: This empirical analysis reflects critical practices among collaborative networks that contributed substantially to the production of CEA, raises challenges for redesigning future policies and provides a framework for similar analyses in other regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the authors analyze the keywords given by authors of scientific articles and the descriptors assigned to the articles to ascertain the presence of the keywords in the descriptors. Six-hundred forty INSPEC (Information Service for Physics, Engineering, and Computing), CAB (Current Agriculture Bibliography) abstracts, ISTA (Information Science and Technology Abstracts), and LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) database records were consulted. After detailed comparisons, it was found that keywords provided by authors have an important presence in the database descriptors studied; nearly 25% of all the keywords appeared in exactly the same form as descriptors, with another 21% though normalized, still detected in the descriptors. This means that almost 46% of keywords appear in the descriptors, either as such or after normalization. Elsewhere, three distinct indexing policies appear, one represented by INSPEC and LISA (indexers seem to have freedom to assign the descriptors they deem necessary); another is represented by CAB (no record has fewer than four descriptors and, in general, a large number of descriptors is employed). In contrast, in ISTA, a certain institutional code exists towards economy in indexing because 84% of records contain only four descriptors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Dentistry is a medical discipline with an increasing scientific production in the last years. Due to the importance of data sharing in science, this study aims at analyzing the availability of raw data in articles from scientific journals indexed in the Dentistry category of the 2014 edition of the Journal Citation Reports. Material and methods: A review of the 88 websites of journals from the Dentistry category was conducted to determine the data-sharing editorial policies. Furthermore, a search in the PubMed Central repository to collect information about the characteristics of the supplementary material of articles from those journals was carried out. Results: The possibility of publishing a supplementary material was higher in the first quartile journals. A percentage of 7.6% of the articles registered in PubMed Central contained a supplementary material, especially text documents, but the presence of spreadsheets was scarce. Conclusions: There is a relationship between openness policies and the impact of the journals according to their quartile or position ranking by the impact factor in the JCR, but the willingness of sharing raw data in spreadsheets format is still limited. Clinical relevance: This study will reveal the resources of raw data which will improve quality of research and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To quantify, using bibliometric indicators, the scientific productivity of researchers, organizations, and countries, publishing articles on implantology in dental journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports between 2009 and 2013. Materials and methods Published texts were identified by applying the truncated search term 'implant*.' Document type was limited to 'Article.' Records were manually refined and normalized to unify terms and to remove typographical, transcription, and/or indexing errors. Results A total of 6088 articles were located. A progressive increase in the rate of publication was observed, especially between 2010 and 2012. This increase was clearly linked to increased collaboration between authors, institutions, and countries. Keywords appeared at a frequency of 3.1 per document. The journals Clinical Oral Implants Research and International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants published the highest numbers of articles. Conclusions This study revealed a significant growth in implant dentistry literature in terms of the total number of journals, number of authors, organizations, and author collaborations. Most key bibliometric indicators demonstrated upward trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades.Methods: This was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta-analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded.Results: Overall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland).Conclusions: Our analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries publishing meta-analyses of randomized trials in high impact medical journals. This valuable information may be used to strengthen scientific capacity for collaboration and to help to promote a global agenda for future research of excellence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Research collaborations in biomedical research have evolved over time. No studies have addressed research collaboration in network meta-analysis (NMA). In this study, we used social network analysis methods to characterize global collaboration patterns of published NMAs over the past decades. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched (at 9th July, 2015) to include systematic reviews incorporating NMA. Two reviewers independently selected studies and cross-checked the standardized data. Data was analyzed using Ucinet 6.0 and SPSS 17.0. NetDraw software was used to draw social networks. Results: 771 NMAs published in 336 journals from 3459 authors and 1258 institutions in 49 countries through the period 1997–2015 were included. More than three-quarters (n = 625; 81.06%) of the NMAs were published in the last 5-years. The BMJ (4.93%), Current Medical Research and Opinion (4.67%) and PLOS One (4.02%) were the journals that published the greatest number of NMAs. The UK and the USA (followed by Canada, China, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany) headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of NMAs. The top 20 authors and institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. Overall, 43 clusters of authors (four major groups: one with 37 members, one with 12 members, one with 11 members and one with 10 members) and 21 clusters of institutions (two major groups: one with 62 members and one with 20 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were affiliated with academic institutions and private consulting firms. 181 consulting firms and pharmaceutical industries (14.39% of institutions) were involved in 199 NMAs (25.81% of total publications). Although there were increases in international and inter-institution collaborations, the research collaboration by authors, institutions and countries were still weak and most collaboration groups were small sizes. Conclusion: Scientific production on NMA is increasing worldwide with research leadership of Western countries (most notably, the UK, the USA and Canada). More authors, institutions and nations are becoming involved in research collaborations, but frequently with limited international collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It has been observed that women are less represented in research on addictions, which may diminish their contribution to the area. Purpose: To analyze the existence of gender inequality in different activities related to research on addictions. Methods: The representation of Spanish women was calculated from three perspectives: in the grants to research projects funded by the Spanish Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas (PNSD), in the publications derived from these projects, and in the editorial committees (EC) of a selection of journals on addictions. Results: Only 26.9% of the main researchers in the PNSD grants were women. No statistically significant differences were observed between the sex of the principal investigator, the number of researchers, their sex and the collaboration with researchers of another sex in the publications. In three foreign journals only one Spanish woman participates as the only member of the EC (Alcohol and Alcoholism, Alcohol and Addictive Behaviors). Conclusions: Only a third of the main researchers of the PNSD grants are women and their representation has not increased in recent years. The presence of women in the EC of the Spanish journals of addictions is the fifth part that the one of the men and in the foreign journals their representation is smaller. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The exponential increase in implant placement worldwide and the high prevalence of its associated pathologies have prompted an increasing contribution by the scientific community to the number of publications related to peri‐implant pathologies. Purpose: The objective of this work is to carry out a bibliometric analysis of scientific production on peri‐implant diseases. Materials and Methods: The search strategy included titles, keywords, and abstracts based on the term peri‐implantitis and all the possible combinations existing in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of the main collection of Web of Science. Two limits were established: the document typology was limited to Article and Review, and articles published up to 2019 were selected. All articles were refined and standardized manually to avoid typographical errors and duplications in authors' names or institutions. Results: The total number of papers collected was 2547. A significant increase was observed in the number of articles published, especially in the past 10 years. The three most productive authors were Europeans, and the 45 most productive institutions were the universities. The most productive funding entities were the governments. Of the published works, 42.28% were funded. Of the 2547 records, 86.53% presented keywords. Conclusions: Scientific literature on peri‐implantitis shows scientific growth in recent years, with a growing trend towards collaboration between authors and institutions. Most of the works have been published in high‐impact journals, and in the last 2 years, more than half of the works have received some type of public or private funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented.Results: We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965-2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the "Bland-Altman method") and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy).Conclusions: Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are childhood onset neurodevelopmental disorders that may persist into adulthood. ASD and ADHD tend to run in families and may have a significant negative impact on the health and longevity of those with the disorder and their relatives. The aim of this study will be to analyze the risk of mortality among children, adolescents, and adults with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives. Methods/design: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science will be used to identify epidemiological studies. Eligible studies will be observational studies reporting study-specific data for all-cause mortality or cause-specific mortality in children, adolescents, or adults with ASD or ADHD and/or their first-degree relatives. Cohort studies and case-control studies will be included. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be cause-specific mortality. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study risk of bias/methodological quality will be appraised by two reviewers independently. The methodological quality of epidemiological studies will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary studies will be conducted where appropriate. Subgroup analyses for exploring statistical heterogeneity, if feasible, will include gender, age group, ethnicity, comorbidities, classification of cause of death, and relevant study characteristics. Discussion: Our study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the risk of mortality among children, adolescents, and adults with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives. We anticipate that our findings will be of interest to patients, their families, caregivers, healthcare professionals, scientists, and policy makers. Implications for future epidemiological research will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anorexia nervosa is characterized by a severe restriction of caloric intake, low body weight, fear of gaining weight or of becoming fat and disturbance of body image. Pathogenesis of the disorder may include genetic predisposition, hormonal changes and a combination of environmental, psychosocial and cultural factors. Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. At present, no systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated the risk of cancer in people with anorexia nervosa. The objective of this study will be to evaluate the association between anorexia nervosa and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. Methods/design: This study protocol is part of a systematic collection and assessment of multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (umbrella review) evaluating the association of cancer and multiple central nervous system disorders. We designed a specific protocol for a new systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of anorexia nervosa with risk of developing or dying from any cancer. Data sources will be PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and manual screening of references. Observational studies (case–control and cohort) in humans that examined the association between anorexia nervosa and risk of developing or dying from cancer will be sought. The primary outcomes will be cancer incidence and cancer mortality in association with anorexia nervosa. Secondary outcomes will be sitespecific cancer incidence and mortality, respectively. Screening of abstracts and full texts and data abstraction will be performed by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. The quality of studies will be assessed by using the Ottawa-Newcastle scale by two team members independently. Random effects models will be conducted where appropriate. Subgroup and additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity. TheWorld Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for determining the quality of evidence for cancer outcomes. Discussion: Findings from this systematic review will inform an ongoing umbrella review on cancer and central nervous system disorders. Our systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the association between anorexia nervosa and cancer. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42017067462. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this study to investigate the evolution and current status of peer-reviewed publications concerning generic drugs during the past few decades. Methods Scientific articles about generic drugs published until 2012 were retrieved through the PubMed/MEDLINE database, and a content analysis was performed. Findings Our study revealed an increasing number of publications on generics since 1984. Statins, antiretroviral therapies, and antiepileptics, followed by immunosuppressants and antithrombotic agents, were the most common therapeutic drug categories. Implications Almost 60% of the generics detailed in studies indexed in MEDLINE were acting on the cardiovascular system as anti-infectives and on the nervous system, which is not surprising considering the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this study will be to synthesize the epidemiological evidence and evaluate the validity of the associations between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. Methods/design: We will perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews and conduct updated meta-analyses of observational studies (cohort and case-control) investigating the association between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from any cancer or specific types of cancer. Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science will be used to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. In addition, online databases will be checked for observational studies published outside the time frames of previous reviews. Eligible central nervous system disorders will be Alzheimer's disease, anorexia nervosa, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, depression, Down's syndrome, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. The primary outcomes will be cancer incidence and cancer mortality in association with a central nervous system disorder. Secondary outcome measures will be site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, respectively. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study quality/risk of bias will be appraised by two reviewers independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary observational studies will be conducted where appropriate. Parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity are pre-specified. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for determining the quality of evidence for cancer outcomes. Discussion: Our study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the associations between central nervous system disorders and cancer and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important site-specific cancer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific collaboration and gender equality are two spheres of great interest for the organizations responsible for instigating scientific policies. We have identified the research groups and women's contribution to one of the most outstanding Spanish psychology journals. We have selected papers published during the 1989-2008 period in Psicothema. A bibliometric and network analysis was carried Out using the Pajek Software tool. We have analysed 1,718 papers, written by 2,423 authors, 53.45% men and 47.54% women. We have identified 86 research groups made up of 293 researchers. We have observed a high increase of productivity and collaboration in the 1999-2008 period, as well as the consolidation, growth, and evolution of many incipient groups identified in the 1989-1998 period, benefiting from the increased interest and prestige of the journal. Despite the increase in the number of women, rising from 35.71% in 1989 to 48.48 in 2008, we have observed an imbalance with regard to productivity and the order of signatures, where women are relegated to intermediate positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to analyse the network of scientific collaboration generated by the co-authorship of articles on smoking among different specialties on a world-wide level through the Science Citation Index (SCI) in the period 1999-2003. Material and methods: We selected collaboration articles on smoking research among different specialties listed in the SCI (1999-2003). The underlying network of collaboration among specialties was analysed, comparing production, visibility and centrality. Results: Forty-nine different specialties were identified, of which 47 (96%) had produced articles in collaboration (461 articles). The most productive specialty was Psychiatry--Psychology. The specialties that produced more studies in collaboration with others were Respiratory Medicine and Internal Medicine. Respiratory Medicine, however, was the specialty that received the greatest number of citations. Conclusions: Psychiatry--Psychology was the most productive specialty, while Internal Medicine and Respiratory Medicine produced more articles in collaboration. Respiratory Medicine was the specialty that received the greatest number of citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following publication of the original article [1], the author informed [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Due to the lack of bibliometric studies in the field of lingual orthodontics in dentistry, the aim of this study was to assess the evolution and current status of activity in this field during the period 1978–2017. Methods: A bibliometric analysis of the scientific articles indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded of the Web of Science and in the Scopus® database was performed using the truncated terms "ling* apppli*" or "ling* orthod*" or "ling* bracket*". The types of texts included for analysis were limited to "articles" and "reviews". The following information was extracted from each article identified: title, authors' name(s), institutional affiliation(s), country of origin, journal title, year of publication, type of publication, and number of citations. Results: A total of 341 articles were identified by 646 different authors, 6.2% were reviews and 93.8% were other types of journal articles. Bibliometric indicators showed a tremendous increase in the rate of publication over time with two peaks in productivity in 1989 and 2013. Fourteen authors and 15 institutional collaboration networks were identified in which European institutions were the most productive. Methodological articles were the most frequent types of research articles (28.1%), followed by case reports/series (17.1%), and narrative reviews (4.7%). Articles providing the highest quality evidence were interventional clinical trials (1.8%) and systematic reviews (0.9%). The remaining articles were non-research papers and were for information purposes only. Conclusions: Bibliometric indicators point to an irregular increase in the numbers of published works in lingual orthodontics over time. Research output is dominated by methodological articles as a technique-driven subspecialty. Although articles on lingual orthodontics are published mainly in North American journals, lingual orthodontics is largely a European domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex developmental disorder characterised by impaired social interaction and communication, and restrictive and repetitive behaviour. Previous systematic reviews have traditionally assessed the prevalence of ASD on global or regional context, with very few meta-analyses at the country level. The objective of this study will be to systematically evaluate published and unpublished observational studies that present prevalence and comorbidity of ASD among children, adolescent and adult population in Spain. Methods/design: We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of descriptive epidemiology data. Observational studies (cohort, cross-sectional) reporting the prevalence of ASD and conducted in a wide range of people (e.g. general population, outpatient and/or school settings) will be included. The primary outcome will be the prevalence of ASD. Secondary outcomes will be the prevalence of any physical or mental comorbidity in association with ASD. No limitations will be imposed on publication status, study conduct period, and language of dissemination. Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in seven electronic databases (from January 1980 onwards), including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IME—Spanish Medical Index and IBECS—Spanish Bibliographic Index of Health Sciences. Grey literature will be identified through searching dissertation databases, Google Scholar and conference abstracts. Two team members will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using an appropriate tool. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis of observational data. Prevalence estimates will be stratified according to gender, age and geographical location. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. methodological quality, sample size, diagnostic criteria). Discussion: This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data will identify, evaluate and integrate the epidemiological knowledge underlying the prevalence of ASD in Spain. The results of this study will be of interest to multiple audiences including patients, their families, caregivers, healthcare professional, scientists and policy makers. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Implications for future epidemiological research will be discussed. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018090372 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterized by a persistent pattern of symptoms of developmentally inappropriate and impaired inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity, with difficulties often continuing into adulthood. ADHD can come with other comorbid conditions. The aim of this study will be to quantify the prevalence and comorbidity of ADHD among children, adolescent, and adult population in Spain. Methods/design: We designed and registered a study protocol for an update and expansion of a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled prevalence data. We will include cross-sectional observational studies reporting prevalence of ADHD in Spain and conducted in the general population, outpatient, and/or school settings. The primary outcome will be the prevalence of ADHD. Secondary outcomes will be the prevalence of any physical or mental comorbidity in association with ADHD. No limitations will be imposed on publication status, study conduct period, and language of dissemination. Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IME – Spanish Medical Index, and IBECS – Spanish Bibliographic Index of Health Sciences. We will also search Google Scholar, dissertation databases, and conference abstracts. Two team members will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of individual studies will be appraised using an appropriate tool. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Prevalence estimates will be stratified according to gender, age, and geographical location. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g., methodological quality, sample size, diagnostic criteria). Discussion: This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data will provide an updated synthesis of the prevalence and comorbidity of ADHD in Spain. This study will also examine factors that may explain potential variations in prevalence data. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018106082. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]