ArticleAnnals of family medicine2019
Development of Primary Care Research in North America, Europe, and Australia From 1974 to 2017.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Will they always be living the Sisyphus punishment? The triple whammy for racialized women: a qualitative investigation of primary care researchers in Canada.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2024Article
- Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2024Article
- Evolution of public funding since primary care research was considered as a priority research domain in france.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- What factors are associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada? A qualitative study.BMC health services research · 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
- 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
- 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
- Article
- Describing the Breadth and Scope of Keck Medical Student Primary Care Research Projects.PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2022Article
- A methodological review protocol of the use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care research.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Research: A Scoping Review.Annals of family medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research is a necessity for high-quality medicine. We used the MEDLINE database to conduct a bibliometric analysis of research output with respect to primary care by 21 countries. For the period 1974 to 2017, the United States and the United Kingdom stood out in terms of publication volume, and the UK, Canada, and Australia had the greatest percentage of publications in primary care. As of 2017, publications in primary care represented a small proportion of total publications. The countries with the greatest publication productivity possess factors that should be considered with respect to strengthening research in primary care.
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.