ReviewCureus2021
The Assessment of Dermatology Clinical Research in Saudi Arabia.
Review in Cureus, 2021. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the level of evidence in dermatology research over the last five years and to assess the frequency of publication in different journals in the field of dermatology in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, western region.
methodsAll published research were reviewed during the period of 2015 till 2020 using online research database through PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. A list of all Saudi dermatologists who are registered by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties as consultants, and who worked in public institutions at Jeddah and Makkah was retrieved. The Oxford Level of Evidence Scale was utilized to determine the level of evidence of these studies. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of different study types and levels of evidence.
resultsA total of 125 articles were published in 62 different national and international journals. Majority of the published studies were level IV (76%). Case reports were the most common type of published research (56%) and meta-analysis studies accounted for (6.4%). Thirty-two articles were produced by academic institutions, compared to 68 published articles from governmental institutions, and 22 from military hospitals.
conclusionOnly a small percentage of publications in Saudi Arabia are considered high level clinical research. The number of publications during the past five years was high compared to the previous years and case reports constituted the majority. Authors should be encouraged to conduct higher-level studies to enhance patient care.
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.