ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2020
Are UK and Ireland trauma and orthopaedic surgeons maintaining their research output?
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare faces growing challenges. With reports of diminishing research output from the UK and Ireland in the leading surgical journals, this study aimed to ascertain whether this trend had been echoed in the trauma and orthopaedic literature. MATERIALS AND
methodsCitable research output from the 10 globally leading trauma and orthopaedic journals was analysed from five individual years, over a 20-year period, to ascertain trends in absolute output, geographical mix, and level of evidence.
resultsThe overall number of published articles fell by 14.5%. North America saw the greatest decline (-8.0%), followed by Japan (-5.6%) and Europe (-3.3%). The UK and Ireland (+2.9%) and the rest of the world (+13.9%) saw rising output. A decline in lower (levels IV and V) and a rise in higher (levels I, II and III) quality evidence was observed. The UK and Ireland had a greater proportion of higher-quality studies than North America and Japan, but lower than Europe and the rest of the world. The impact factor of the leading journal rose from 4.47 to 7.01. DISCUSSION: The research landscape has evolved, with leading journals placing greater emphasis on higher-quality evidence. UK and Irish research output remains stable, contributing 14% of the most highly cited publications in 2018, and challenging North America's dominance with a greater proportion of level I and II evidence in the leading journals.
conclusionWith the growing emergence of Europe and the rest of the world, UK and Irish authors must build upon the region's output despite political challenges such as Brexit. Increasing international collaboration will continue to play an important role.
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.