ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2020
Approaches to Measuring Trends in Interdisciplinary Research Publications at One Academic Medical Center.
Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Single-Authored Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Alignment with Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine if interdisciplinary research has increased between 2005 and 2015, based on an analysis of journal articles containing at least 1 author from Johns Hopkins University, and to compare different methods for determining the disciplinarity of research articles.
methodIn 2017-2018, 100 peer-reviewed biomedical science articles were randomly selected from years 2005, 2010, and 2015 and classified as unidisciplinary or interdisciplinary based on Scopus author affiliation data (method 1). The corresponding authors of the 2010 and 2015 articles were sent a survey asking them to describe the disciplines involved in their research (method 2) and to define their research as unidisciplinary or interdisciplinary based on provided definitions (method 3).
resultsThere was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of interdisciplinary articles in 2015 compared with both 2005 and 2010 (P = .02). Comparison of the 3 methods indicated that 45% of the articles were classified as interdisciplinary based on author affiliation data (method 1), 40% based on the corresponding author's description of the disciplines involved in their research (method 2), and 71% based on the corresponding author's definition of their article's disciplinarity (method 3). There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of articles classified as interdisciplinary between methods 1 and 3 (P < .001) and between methods 2 and 3 (P < .001).
conclusionsThis study found that interdisciplinary research increased at Johns Hopkins University over the past decade and highlights the difference between corresponding authors' views of their own research and other methods for determining interdisciplinarity.
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.