Trial reportIrish journal of medical science2019
Worldwide scientific production in obstetrics: a bibliometric analysis.
Trial report in Irish journal of medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research trends on artificial intelligence and endoscopy in digestive diseases: A bibliometric analysis from 1990 to 2022.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Bibliometric and Visual Analysis in the Field of Dry Needling for Myofascial Pain Syndrome from 2000 to 2022.Journal of pain research · 2023Review
- Research Trends of Acupuncture Therapy on Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Bibliometric Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Review
- Evolutionary Analysis of International Scientific Output in Occupational Therapy from 1917 to 2020.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomised clinical trials are considered to be the most reliable study design for assessing the efficacy and safety of health interventions.
aimsTo analyse worldwide obstetrics research carried out through randomised clinical trials, from 2002 to 2013.
methodsA bibliometric analysis was performed. Publications on obstetrics that were published journals indexed in the MEDLINE database from 2002 to 2013 were analysed. The major medical subject headings used in the search were obstetrics, pregnancy complications and obstetrics surgical procedures. The main study outcome was index of research productivity.
resultsOur study search strategy yielded a total of 142,659 articles and 9967 clinical trials. The growth rate of scientific production in obstetrics during this period was 55.43% (n = 5094). The growth rate of production of randomised clinical trials in this specialty, meanwhile, was 97.84% (n = 544). Most of the identified authors (n = 22,622, 71.21%) published only one paper during the study period. Patterns of co-authorship among the 20 most productive authors were identified. After applying Bradford's law, six journals in the nucleus (the most prolific journals) were found. Of all the clinical trials in obstetrics published between 2002 and 2013, 10.3% were published in journals belonging to categories other than Obstetrics and Gynecology. The most common research topic in 2002 and 2013 was the use of analgesia and anesthesia in obstetrics.
conclusionsTotal scientific production rate in obstetrics increased from 2002 to 2013, especially randomised clinical trials. However, randomised clinical trials continue to represent a small proportion of total production.
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.