ArticleCurrent urology2012
Pediatric and Adult Urological Publications: Trend over the Last 15 Years between 1996 and 2010.
Article in Current urology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to determine the trends in urological publications from 1996 to 2010.
methodsWe retrieved as many urology-related articles as possible from Medline articles between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2010, and attempted to retrieve as many urology articles as possible from all Medline recorded journals (urology-specific and non-urology-specific journals indiscriminately), using the key words: "urology", "pediatric urology", "bladder", "kidney"and others. The search was limited to "all adults"(i.e. adult urology), "all children" (i.e. pediatric urology) as well as female and male urology. We repeated the search by using a certain limit each time according to the publication types as classified by Medline, and collected the total number of publications per year for the 15 years of the specified period. Regression analysis was used to determine the effect of the publication year upon the number of publications of each type.
resultsThere was a steady increase over time in the number of total publications both in pediatric and adult urology, with a sharper rise in the number of meta-analysis publications. At the same time there was a decrease in the number of case reports over the last years.
conclusionsNew medical information available to urology and pediatric urology specialists increases over time and thus increases.
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.