Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21191611›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2011

Bio-medicolegal scientific research in Europe: a comprehensive bibliometric overview.

Santo Davide Ferrara, Thomas Bajanowski, Rossana Cecchi, Rafael Boscolo-Berto, Guido Viel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Medical malpractice and legal medicine.International journal of legal medicine · 2013
    Article
  13. Journals publishing bio-medicolegal research in Europe.International journal of legal medicine · 2012
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Santo Davide FerraraDepartment of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Institute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121, Padua, Italy. santodavide.ferrara@unipd.it
Thomas Bajanowski
Rossana Cecchi
Rafael Boscolo-Berto
Guido Viel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In times of globalisation, the future of bio-medicolegal sciences in Europe depends on the scientific community's ability to develop new strategies for research, to introduce new and generally accepted standards, to develop new analytical methods, all in order to draw up inter-site, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary long-term research projects, eligible for European Union (EU) funding. To analyse the scientific output and to identify the topics of greatest interest and appeal in these sciences, an innovative method has been developed to select and analyse publications. This method has been applied to analyse a total of 21,176 records from PubMed out of which 5,826 papers were suitable for further analysis because they were published in national and international journals in the time between January 1, 2005 and June 1, 2010 by European authors in the field of interest. In 69% of all manuscripts, authors presented results of systematic research (original articles); 84% of the papers were written in English language. The cumulative impact factor increased from 1,670 points in 2005 to 1,878 in 2009, and extrapolated 2,812 points in 2010. The most frequent topics were the description of new analytical methods in forensic toxicology (5.7% of all papers), the analysis of short tandem repeat systems (STR, 5.6%) as well as the analysis of injury mechanisms in forensic pathology and clinical forensic medicine (4.9%). If the impact factor related potential of different topics is calculated (ratio of frequency of papers and frequency of impact points achieved), SIDS research reaches 1.64 points, followed by studies on mtDNA (1.59) and the development of new analytical methods in forensic toxicology (1.49). The findings made in the present bibliometric analysis reveal a clear and interesting overall picture of the European scientific production and productivity and could be used to identify the most innovative research lines.

Indexed as

BibliometricsForensic SciencesBiomedical ResearchEuropeJournal Impact FactorPublishing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.