ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2026
Global academic productivity in emergency medicine and research output by countries of different income levels.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite disparities in the availability and quality of emergency care, the extent to which countries with different incomes participate in research on emergency medicine (EM) remains understudied. This study evaluated productivity in EM research depending on national income.
methodsResearch published since 2004 in Scopus-indexed journals dealing with EM was analyzed quantitatively. Publication, citation, journal impact, and national socioeconomic data were compared. Automated topic modeling was applied using a latent Dirichlet allocation model.
resultsThe analysis included 154,458 publications (89.7% in English) from 177 countries. The studies received 1,817,635 citations. High-income countries (HICs) outperformed upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), and low-income countries (LICs) by 11-, 41-, and 72-fold, respectively, by the weighted number of publications (per million population per country), and by 21-, 54-, and 171-fold, respectively, by the weighted count of citations. The annual number of publications is predicted to rise considerably for HICs, to a lesser extent for UMICs, and to far less for LMICs, but not for LICs. Research productivity was significantly related to national socioeconomic indicators. Topic modeling revealed that HICs pay relatively more attention to advances in resuscitation, whereas LICs focus more on injuries.
conclusionWhile global research productivity for EM is rising, LICs lag far behind HICs. Priorities in EM research differ among countries with different incomes. The development of country-specific EM research agendas would help boost national academic productivity and determine context-appropriate interventions for improving outcomes in emergency care.
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.