Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31057970›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine international2019

Contribution of Experimental Animal Research Studies to the Emergency Medicine Literature.

Umut Ocak, John H Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Umut OcakDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6549-4246
John H ZhangDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4319-4285

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to provide a detailed analysis of emergency medicine (EM) research literature to unveil the trends while underlining the importance of experimental research for all territories of science. To this end, the experimental animal research articles published in EM journals indexed to the Science Citation Index Expanded database with a date of publication between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017, were reviewed retrospectively. All data regarding the journal name, publication year, country, department and institution of the first author, subject species, type of the experimental model, target organ/system/functions, evaluation method, outcome measures, and citation counts were noted. Resultantly, a total of 736 articles were found to be published in 18 journals. Resuscitation (n=285, 38.7%) had the highest number of articles followed by Injury (n=143, 19.4%), Turkish Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (n=128, 17.4%), and American Journal of Emergency Medicine (n=63, 8.6%). The USA was the largest contributor with 199 studies (27%). The department of the first author was EM in 190 (28.8%) of the reports. Various versions of cardiac arrest models were applied in 257 (34.9%) studies while brain (n=101, 13.7%) was the most commonly explored area. The main outcome measures were clinical outcomes/survival rates (n=408, 55.43%). The molecular mechanisms of the injury were evaluated in 37 (5%) of the studies. In conclusion, experimental animal studies are essential in the progress of contemporary scientific knowledge. EM journals should encourage and consider giving more place to experimental research given their undisputed worth and potential future contributions to science, including the field of EM.

Identifiers

PMID31057970
PMCPMC6463603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.