ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2017
Scientific Publication Performance of Turkish Anaesthesia Clinics in High Impact Factor International Journals Between 2005 and 2014: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific Publication Performance of the Erector Spinae Plane Block in Türkiye: A Bibliometric Analysis.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2023Article
- Research Output from the Irish Paediatric Hospitals in the Field of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Over 10 Years: A Bibliometric Analysis.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2020Article
- Did We Get Lost in Space A Step Away From 2020? Bibliometric Analysis of Turkish-Based Publications from 2008 to the Present in Science Citation Index and Citation Index-Expanded Indexed Journals in the Field of Anaesthesiology.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInternational scientific publication productivity is a tangible indicator for the accuracy of scientific policies. The quality of scientific publications is not increasing despite the fast increase in the publication count in Turkey. The international publication activities of Turkish anaesthesia clinics have not been previously explored. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the high quality scientific productivity of Turkish anesthesia clinics within the last 10 years.
methodsWe searched for studies conducted by anaesthesiologists in Turkey within the last 10 years and published in journals listed under the medical subject categories of anaesthesiology and critical care using 'Thomson Reuters InCites' and PubMed databases. We recorded publication year, subject, method, citation count and origin of each paper and conducted descriptive analyses.
resultsThere were 630 papers meeting our inclusion criteria. Among those, 525 (83%) were studies on anaesthesia, 66 (10%) were studies on critical care and 39 (6%) were studies on pain. The average citation count was 9.90. There were 376 controlled/randomized controlled trials, 98 observational studies, 66 laboratory studies, 64 case series/reports, 5 reviews and 21 letters to the editor. Studies were conducted by universities (82.4%), by training and research hospitals (15.56%), by state and military hospitals (0.63%) and by physicians in private practice (1.27%). Baskent University had the highest publication count, Istanbul University had the highest citation count and Trakya University had the highest publication count per faculty teaching staff.
conclusionThe high-impact scientific productivity of Turkish anesthesia clinics is in a downward trend in the last 10 years, and the average citation count is lower than the global average.
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.