ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2025
Global disparities in scientific publications: A 5-year analysis of 10 critical care journals.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Iterative Development of an AI-Assisted Data Extraction Tool for Literature Synthesis in Oncology.Cureus · 2026Article
- From Computer-Assisted Surgery to Extended Reality: Research Trends, Global Collaboration, and Future Directions in Craniomaxillofacial Surgery.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Review
- International collaboration in critical care research: a 5-year bibliometric analysis of disparities between critical care studies in developed in high- and middle-/low-income countries.Critical care science · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the global distribution of original research articles in intensive care journals, analysing differences by country income level and assessing study characteristics, including type, funding, and accessibility. Design: A retrospective bibliometric analysis of original research articles published between 2018 and 2022. Setting: The 10 intensive care journals with the highest 2022 Impact Factors, as identified by Clarivate Analytics. Participants: Original research articles (observational studies and randomised controlled trials) in adult intensive care, excluding paediatric and preclinical studies. Main outcome measures: Country of affiliation of the corresponding author (classified by World Bank income level), study type, funding source, number of participating centres, open-access status, and thematic category. Results: Among 12,441 manuscripts reviewed, we included 4982 original research articles. Of these, 4479 (89.9 %) were from high-income countries (HICs), 446 (9.0 %) from upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), 53 (1.1 %) from lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), and 4 (0.1 %) from low-income countries (LICs). Overall, 434 (8.7 %) were randomised controlled trials, with higher proportions in UMICs (13.2 %) and LMIC (20.8 %) studies compared with HICs (8.1 %). Multicenter design was reported in 44.6 % of all studies, but less frequently in UMICs (29.1 %) and LMICs (30.2 %). The median sample size was 228 patients (interquartile range, 76-1052), ranging from 231 in HICs to 211 in UMICs and 100 in LMICs. Funding was reported in 56.9 % of studies, most often from public sources. Public funding supported 28.0 % of UMICs and 9.4 % of LMICs studies, compared with 14.3 % of HIC studies. Open-access articles represented 44.8 % overall and were more common among funded studies. Conclusions: Publications from UMICs, LMICs, and LICs remain underrepresented in high-impact intensive care journals. Structural barriers, limited funding, and potential publication bias contribute to this imbalance. Addressing these gaps requires greater funding opportunities, equitable collaborations, and stronger editorial commitment to inclusivity.
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.