ArticleArchives of rheumatology2023
Academic publication activities and perspectives of rheumatology practitioners in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Archives of rheumatology, 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, 0 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to analyze the research, publication activities, and perspectives on clinical practices of rheumatology practitioners during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and methods: The survey-based cross-sectional study was designed online and included 24 closed-ended questions. After performing a pilot test and validation of survey, it was conducted among clinicians between September 2021 and December 2021. Results: One-hundred fifteen clinicians (54 males, 61 females; 78.1% in rheumatology practice for at least five years) responded to the survey. The respondents indicated that they worked in coronavirus-related departments, comprising inpatient service (50.4%), consultancy (42.6%), and outpatient clinic (27.8%). Around 40% of clinicians stated they spent less time on scientific research (43.1%) and clinical learning activities (43.2%), while almost the same proportion of them spent more (41.1% and 45.0%, respectively). This study revealed that 53.5% published at least one paper covering mostly COVID-19 in the scientific citation index (SCI) or SCI-expanded (SCI-E) indexed journals. However, nearly half of them did not have any papers published in the SCI/SCI-E (46.5%) or non-SCI/SCI-E indexed (44.6%) journals. Regarding the perspectives of clinicians about clinical practices, they considered fewer biological (57.0%) and nonbiological (55.0%) drug usage, reported fewer outpatient clinic visits (88.2%), more newly diagnosed rheumatic diseases (62.5%), and more disease exacerbations (31.2%). Most of the clinicians (range, 76.2 to 86.3%) thought they accurately managed their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: Clinicians published mostly coronavirus-related papers in the pandemic era, and in the self-assessment, clinicians thought that they correctly manage their patients. In addition, this study reflected the frequency of academic publications and clinicians' work routines during the pandemic.
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.