Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32541490›Full record

ArticleMedicine2020

General internal medicine and family medicine journals: Comparative study of published articles using bibliometric data.

Paul Sebo

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Academic Promotion of Physicians in Medical Schools: A Special Focus on Primary Health Care in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
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

1 author.

Paul SeboPrimary Care Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Like research in general internal medicine, family medicine research can play an important role in improving medical knowledge. We aimed to compare articles published in family medicine journals with articles published in general internal medicine journals. In this bibliometric study, we retrieved 658 randomly selected quantitative articles published in 2016 in 18 high impact factor journals of family medicine and general internal medicine. We extracted the following data: author (gender, number of publications, and place of residence of the first author), paper (number of participants, study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline, 2015 impact factor). We compared the two groups of articles, using multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for impact factor and intra-cluster correlations. The first author of the articles published in family medicine journals, compared to general internal medicine journals, was more often a woman (OR 2.8 [95%CI 1.8-4.4], P-value < .001), living in the Western world (OR 14.4 [95%CI 6.0-34.4], P-value < .001), and a less experienced researcher (<5 vs >15 publications: OR 2.4 [95%CI 1.5-4.0], P-value .01). In addition, these studies generally included more participants (>1000 vs <100: OR 3.5 [95%CI 1.4-8.6], P-value .02). There was no statistically significant difference in the study design between the two groups of articles (P-value .25). Despite some differences between the two groups of articles, studies published in family medicine journals do not appear to be any less ambitious in terms of study design and sample size than those published in general internal medicine journals.

Indexed as

BibliometricsFamily PracticeInternal MedicinePeriodicals as TopicPublishing

Identifiers

PMID32541490
PMCPMC7302657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.