ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011
Research output on primary care in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States: bibliometric analysis.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
68 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury: a decade of research trends and developments.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Experiences of general practice teams and their patients with clinical research-a mixed-methods process evaluation of the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- Biomedical dominance and the underrepresentation of primary care: An analyses of self-claimed research priorities of German medical schools.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Global status and trends of exosomes in neurodegenerative diseases from 2014 to 2023: a bibliometric and visual analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- How does the role of complementary and alternative medicine in general practice differ between countries? Interviews with doctors who have worked both in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Article
- Global Trends in mHealth and Medical Education Research: Bibliometrics and Knowledge Graph Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- General practice-related MeSH terms in main journals: a bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2021.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Undertaking multi-centre randomised controlled trials in primary care: learnings and recommendations from the PULsE-AI trial researchers.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Expectations of general practitioners on a practice based research network in Germany- a qualitative study within the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Publication trends of Leber congenital amaurosis researches: a bibliometric study during 2002-2022.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Features and development trends of primary care research conducted by practice-based research networks from 1991 to 2023: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Trends and hotspots related to traditional and modern approaches on acupuncture for stroke: A bibliometric and visualization analysis.Medicine · 2023Article
- Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Global status and trends in gout research from 2012 to 2021: a bibliometric and visual analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Article
- General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013-2019.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Observational
- Global research trends of endoscope in early gastric cancer: A bibliometric and visualized analysis study over past 20 years.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Citation impact and reach of the IOC sport and exercise medicine consensus statements.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2023Article
- Implementing an outpatient clinical trial on COVID-19 treatment in an emergency epidemic context: a mixed methods study among operational and research stakeholders within the Coverage trial, Bordeaux (France).Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- Global Trends and Hotspots in Endoscopic Discectomy: A Study Based on Bibliometric Analysis.Neurospine · 2022Article
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care.
designBibliometric analysis.
settingUnited Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive.
main outcome measuresVolume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores.
results82,169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher's productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany.
conclusionThis international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.