ReviewSaudi medical journal2017
Level of evidence of abdominal surgery clinical research in Saudi Arabia.
Review in Saudi medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oncology research in Saudi Arabia over a 10-year period. A synopsis.Saudi medical journal · 2020Pooled it
- Level of evidence analysis of the Saudi Dental Journal: A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2012 to 2021.The Saudi dental journal · 2023Article
- Pediatric Neurology Workforce in Saudi Arabia: A 5-Year Update.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Research activities and critical appraisal skills among Saudi orthopedic residents.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Review
- Article
- Comment on: Oncology research in Saudi Arabia over a 10-year period. A synopsis.Saudi medical journal · 2020Article
- Publications pattern of clinical epilepsy research in Saudi Arabia.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify and evaluate the level of evidence (LOE) of Saudi publications in abdominal surgery and correlate the obtained results with that of other similar national and international studies. Methods: Study design was a systemic review. Literature search strategy was developed to retrieve available articles between January 2000 and December 2016 that are related to abdominal surgery utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar. Retrieved articles were analyzed in depth with several parameters, then evaluated using (OEBM) level of evidence scale. Results: One hundred and ninety-eight articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 50.5% were level III evidence studies. The most common study design was case reports (47%), and academic institutions had the highest rate of publications (47%). Conclusion: Saudi research in abdominal surgery published between 2000-2016 are of lower quality and of III and IV LOE, which is in the consistency with other specialties. We emphasize the need for promotion of a national and institutional research studies of I and II LOE with collaboration between different health care institutions.
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.