ArticleTurkish archives of otorhinolaryngology2020
The Bibliometric Analysis of the Studies Presented at the Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the Period 2009-2018.
Article in Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Top-Cited Articles With a Focus on Barrett's Esophagus: A Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the abstracts presented at Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the years from 2009 to 2018.
methodsAbstracts were defined and grouped according to their field of study, design, level of evidence, number of authors, the main institution in which they were held, and whether they were uni- or multi-centric. Frequency and percentage tables were prepared.
resultsIn total, 5,463 studies, of which 1,431 (26.2%) were oral presentations and 4,032 (73.8%) were poster presentations were reviewed. The highest number of studies was in the field of otology and in the form of oral presentations (32%), and in the field of head and neck surgery in the form of poster presentations (37%). Fifty-seven percent of all studies were conducted in university hospitals, and 34% in Training and Research Hospitals. Eighty-three percent of oral presentations and 99% of poster presentations were clinical studies. The rate of experimental animal studies was 16% in oral presentations. The most commonly used design of orally presented clinical studies was descriptive (31%), whereas prospective randomized controlled design was the least common (3%). No study with a level 1 of evidence was found. The rate of oral papers presented with evidence levels 2, 3, 4, and 5 among all oral presentations were 22%, 13%, 11%, and 54%, respectively.
conclusionThe findings indicated that the abstracts were satisfactory in quantity, but overall scientific quality was not sufficient. The data obtained may serve as a basis for future studies, and follow-up studies may guide individuals and institutions that steer the Turkish ENT community.
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.