ArticleCroatian medical journal2006
Scientific production of research fellows at the Zagreb University School of Medicine, Croatia.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bibliometric and clinical trial registry analysis of the University of Split medical research from 1997 to 2022.Croatian medical journal · 2025Article
- Nursing MSc theses: a study of an Iranian College of Nursing and Midwifery in two decades (1990-2010).Global journal of health science · 2014Article
- Careers of an elite cohort of U.S. basic life science postdoctoral fellows and the influence of their mentor's citation record.BMC medical education · 2010Article
- Medical teachers' attitudes towards science and motivational orientation for medical research.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2009Article
- Assessing clinical and life sciences performance of research institutions in Split, Croatia, 2000-2006.Croatian medical journal · 2008Article
- Employment outcomes among junior researchers in medicine in Croatia.Croatian medical journal · 2008Article
- Family medicine practice and research: survey of physicians' attitudes towards scientific research in a post-communist transition country.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2007Article
- Masters theses from a university medical college: publication in indexed scientific journals.Indian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate scientific production among research fellows employed at the Zagreb University School of Medicine and identify factors associated with their scientific output.
methodWe conducted a survey among research fellows and their mentors during June 2005. The main outcome measure was publication success, defined for each fellow as publishing at least 0.5 articles per employment year in journals indexed in the Current Contents bibliographic database. Bivariate methods and binary logistic regression were used in data analysis.
resultsA total of 117 fellows (response rate 95%) and 83 mentors (100%) were surveyed. The highest scientific production was recorded among research fellows employed in public health departments (median 3.0 articles, interquartile range 4.0), compared with those from pre-clinical (median 0.0, interquartile range 2.0) and clinical departments (median 1.0, interquartile range 2.0) (Kruskal-Wallis, P =0.003). A total of 36 (29%) research fellows published at least 0.5 articles per employment year and were considered successful. Three variables were associated with fellows' publication success: mentor's scientific production (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-7.53), positive mentor's assessment (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.10-9.05), and fellows' undergraduate publication in journals indexed in the Current Contents bibliographic database (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 1.07-15.34).
conclusionUndergraduate publication could be used as one of the main criteria in selecting research fellows. One of the crucial factors in a fellow's scientific production and career advancement is mentor's input, which is why research fellows would benefit most from working with scientifically productive mentors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17042070PMC2080473What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.