Trial reportMedicine2021
Comparative analysis of the recent publication trends in 4 representative journals in the spine field.
Trial report in Medicine, 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, 2 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractWe have analyzed and compared the publication trends in 4 representative spinal journals [Spine, European Spinal Journal (EUS), The Spine Journal (TSJ), and the Journal of Neurosurgery - Spine (JNS spine)] from 2016 to 2018.A total of 3784 articles were published in the 4 representative journals: 1358, 1128, 685, and 613 articles in Spine, EUS, TSJ, and JNS spine, respectively. We compared and analyzed each periodical for the time taken (days) for the publication process, the distribution of specialties of the corresponding author, multicity of the investigative institutions, main disease entity, study type, and design.The period from submission to online publication was 133, 216, 181, and 318 days in Spine, EUS, TSJ, and JNS spine, respectively. Corresponding authors with orthopedic specialties were more common in Spine, EUS, and TSJ than in JNS spine. Of particular note, corresponding authors who were neurosurgeons were the majority (55.8%) only in JNS spine. Single institution articles were by far the most common (average 92.8%) in all 4 journals. In all of the analyzed journals, the proportion of degenerative diseases was dominant with an average of 44.9%. The most frequent study type in all 4 journals was a clinical article (79.6, 72.1, 63.3, and 63.1%, respectively). In general, meta-analyses (average 4%) and randomized controlled comparative studies (average 5.2%) accounted for a very low percentage of the study types.We believe that periodic analyses and comparisons of the characteristics of representative spine journals will help to shape the direction of future improvements.
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.