ArticleIrish journal of medical science2011
A five-year review of publication productivity among Irish orthopaedic units.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Publication rates of presentations at the Irish Orthopaedic Association annual meeting.Irish journal of medical science · 2014Article
- Research in higher surgical training: which rotation?Irish journal of medical science · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe academic productivity of trainees, consultants and institutions is frequently judged by the quantity of articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
aimTo assess the publication history of Irish orthopaedic units over a 5-year period, and to identify patterns of publication.
methodsA PubMed search was performed of each consultant affiliated with each orthopaedic unit in the country for between 2004 and 2008. Publications were classified by individual, institution, publication type and impact factor.
resultsOver the 5 years of the study, 239 papers were published from 19 orthopaedic units, in 69 different journals. Fifty-six consultants had at least one senior author publication, with seven consultants having more than ten. Impact factors of the journals targeted varied considerably and reveals an interesting duality among authors when opting for profile or prestige.
conclusionWe feel this study represents a comprehensive and novel review of the state of publishing in a surgical specialty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21286843What 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.