ArticleHeliyon2023
Association between the use of Sci-Hub and consultation of scientific journals by medical students from six Latin American countries: A secondary analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objective: Sci-Hub is a website that allows users to download full-text versions of millions of scientific articles for free. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the use of Sci-Hub and consultation of scientific journals by medical students from six Latin American countries. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a 2017 cross-sectional study of medical students from six Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru). Consultation of scientific journals was considered as the dependent variable, while the independent variable was the use of Sci-Hub. Responses were categorized as: "do not know"; "did not use it"; "used it at least once a week"; "used it more than once a week"; and "used it every day of the month". In simple and multiple regression analyses, multivariate random-effects models were used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR), with 95% confident intervals (CI). Results: Of the 6632 participants, 38.2% consulted scientific journals and 10.3% used Sci-Hub once a week. Using Sci-Hub at least once a week was associated with a 20% increase in the prevalence of consulting scientific journals (PR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.31, Conclusion: Amongst medical students surveyed from the above six Latin American countries, the use of Sci-Hub at least once a week was significantly associated with the self-reported prevalence of consulting scientific journals.
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.