ArticleRespiratory care2024
Academic Output of Fellows of the American Association for Respiratory Care.
Article in Respiratory care, 2024. 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.
- Moving the Respiratory Care Profession Forward.Respiratory care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch is critical for the advancement of respiratory care. Fellows of the American Association for Respiratory Care (FAARCs) are nominated based on their significant contributions to the respiratory care profession. Research output is potentially an important component of qualification for FAARC. The purpose of this study is to report the academic output of respiratory therapist (RT) FAARCs.
methodsWe identified FAARCs from the AARC web site. Research output was assessed by searching the Scopus and PubMed databases. We collected total research documents, citations, h-index, co-authors, and document type. We compared those with only the FAARC designation with RTs who are fellows in both the Society of Critical Care Medicine (FCCMs) and FAARC.
resultsWe identified a total of 371 RT FAARCs, 4 RT FCCMs, and 10 with both designations. FAARCs were 70% male, 22% had a doctorate, 37% had a master's, 13% had a bachelor's, and 29% did not have a degree reported. There were no differences in sex or highest degree between FAARCs and FCCMs. FAARCs had a total of 3,724 publications and 110,207 citations while those with both designations had 1,304 publications and 43,181 citations. In Scopus, 46% of FAARCs had no publications, and 27% had ≥ 10 publications; of those with both credentials, 10% had no publications, and 70% had ≥ 10 publications. FAARCs inducted in 1998 and 1999 had significantly (
conclusionsRT FAARCs had a large number of publications and citations, although nearly half did not have any publications. Those with both FAARC and FCCM had significantly more academic output per fellow, although there are only 10 individuals with both credentials.
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.