Observational studyIrish journal of medical science2021
Taking histories: joint working of disciplines in medical history scholarship.
Observational study in Irish journal of medical science, 2021. 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.
- Promoting research and scholarship in the medical and health humanities in Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWhile there is an increasing emphasis on the value of interdisciplinarity in scholarship in the medical humanities, it is unknown to what extent there is joint working between historians and clinicians in medical history. We aimed to quantify evidence of joint working in authorship of medical history papers.
methodsObservational survey of authorship. We studied authorship data in all papers published in the three major medical history journals between 2009 and 2019 (n = 634).
resultsThe majority of medical history papers is written by single authors with single disciplinary affiliations (68%), most commonly history (65%): fewer than one paper in seven (14%) shows evidence of joint working between disciplines in authorship. A minority of papers (8%) are written by authors with primary medical affiliations. Almost three-quarters (71%) of papers have an acknowledgements section, but only 6% shows clear evidence of joint working between disciplines in the acknowledgements.
conclusionsScholarship engaging both historians and clinicians is rare in medical history journals. Possible solutions include enhanced research collaborations between historians and clinicians, interdisciplinary educational seminars and cross-institutional knowledge exchanges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33432442What 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.