ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
The research environment of critical care in three Asian countries: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although inadequate research support for intensivists can be one major reason of the poor research productivity, no study has investigated the current research environment in critical care medicine in Asia. The objective of this study was to describe Asian academia in critical care from the research environment perspective. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey targeting all physician members of the Societies of Intensive/Critical Care Medicine in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. We collected the characteristics of the participants and their affiliated institutions and the research environment. The outcome was the number of peer-reviewed publications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the association between the outcome and the following five research environmental factors (i.e., country of the respondents, availability of secured time for research activities or research supporting staff for the hospital, practice at a university-affiliated hospital, and years of clinical practice of 10 years or longer). Four hundred ninety responded (overall response rate: 5.6%) to the survey between June 2019 and January 2020. Fifty-five percent worked for a university-affiliated hospital, while 35% worked for a community hospital. Twenty-four percent had secured time for research within their full-time work hours. The multivariable logistic model found that a secured time for the research activities [odds ratio (OR): 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-5.24], practicing at a university-affiliated hospital (OR: 2.61; 95% CI, 1.19-5.74), having clinical experience of 10 years or longer (OR:11.2; 95%CI, 1.41-88.5), and working in South Korea (OR: 2.18; 95% CI, 1.09-4.34, Reference: Japan) were significantly associated with higher research productivity. Intensivists in the three countries had limited support for their research work. Dedicated time for research was positively associated with the number of research publications.
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.