[Bibliometric analysis of International Scientific production on primary care]

General practice-related MeSH terms in main journals: a bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2021

BACKGROUND

There are various Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used to index general practice research, without consistency.

AIM

To understand how general practice-related research is indexed in the main general practice journals between 2011 and 2021, and to analyse the factors that influenced the choice of the general practice-related MeSH.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a quantitative bibliometric study conducted on MEDLINE.

METHOD

MeSH were selected according to the international definition of General Practice/Family Medicine: 'General Practice', 'Primary Health Care', 'Family Practice', 'General Practitioners', 'Physicians, Primary Care', and 'Physicians, Family'. Their use was studied from 2011 to 2021 on MEDLINE, reviewing the 20 general practice journals with the highest impact factors. A descriptive and analytical approach was used; the association of the country, journal, and year with the choice of general practice-related MeSH terms was analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 8514 of 150 286 articles (5.7%) were using one of the general practice-related MeSH terms. The most used were 'Primary Health Care' (4648/9984, 46.6%) and 'General Practice' (2841/9984, 28.5%). A total of 80.0% (6172/7723) of the articles were related to the UK or US and 71.0% (6055/8514) of the articles came from four journals (BJGP, BMJ, Journal of General Internal Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine). Two main country clusters emerged from the use of general practice-related MeSH: a British cluster mainly using 'General Practice' and an American cluster using 'Primary Health Care'. The journals also mainly differed in their used of these two MeSH terms.

CONCLUSION

Important variations in the indexation of general practice research were found. Researchers should consider combining 'Primary Health Care' and 'General Practice' in their PubMed searches to access all the general practice research, regardless of their country of origin.

[Thematic analysis of Primary Care journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports: 2015-2019]

OBJECTIVE

Analyze the thematic lines of the articles and reviews published between 2015 and 2019 in the journals indexed in the "Primary Health Care" category of the Journal Citation Reports.

METHODS

Observational bibliometric study. The bibliographic records of the Web of Science were identified and the frequencies of appearance of the thematic descriptors and their co-occurrence in the documents included in the study were analyzed. In addition to the global analysis, the reviews, the most cited documents, those published in 2015, and those published in 2019 were analyzed separately. Descriptors were classified by thematic clusters using the Current Canadian Index scale and clinical publications were analyzed using the second edition of the International Classification of Primary Care.

RESULTS

A total of 16,444 descriptors were identified in the 7,453 documents analyzed. The most frequent descriptors focus on: diagnosis, prevalence, management, risks, care practice and the figure of the health professional. In the most cited documents, terms with specific themes were used: depression, intervention, satisfaction, quality, therapy, research-based practice. In 2019, there were a greater number of publications focused on epidemiology, clinic, research and provision of services. From a clinical point of view, studies on psychological and mental health problems, nervous system, social problems, palliative care and cancer increased in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis carried out identifies the relevant thematic lines in primary care journals, highlighting the diagnosis and prevalence of diseases, the management of pathologies and their associated risks, as well as clinical practice and the figure of the health professional.

[Use of skeletal-related diagnostic methods in articles published from 2018 to 2020 in four major orthodontics journals]

Objective

To determine the skeletal-related diagnostic methods most commonly used according to the four most important orthodontics journals in the period from 2018 to 2020.

Methods

A review of the data available regarding the diagnostic procedures most frequently used to determine skeletal relationships in the four most important orthodontics journals from 2018 to 2020. Article review was performed using SCIMAGO 2018, which provides a series of parameters ranking the importance of the impact of publications and journals. We made a synopsis of the information analyzed to establish a correlation and compare sources, and critically examined the articles collected on the subject of interest. An online bibliographic search of databases including mainly Medline was carried out, followed by evaluation and selection of the bibliography, organized according to the significance and nature of the study.

Results

The four journals included in the bibliographic search were: AJODO, AO, EJO and KJO. The A point-Nasion-B point (ANB) method was used in 92.2% of the articles published in AJODO, and 7.8% did not describe the method used. Twenty-three articles in the AO journal were evaluated, all of which referred to the use of ANB as the method used. Finally, 16 and 11 articles from the EJO and KJO journals, respectively, were evaluated, with 93.8% and 95%, respectively of the articles using ANB as the method of choice for determining skeletal relationships.

Conclusion

The method of choice for skeletal-related diagnostics is ANB, although this widely known method presents a risk of geometric effect.

Influential journals in health research: a bibliometric study

Background

There is a wide range of intellectual work written about health research, which has been shaped by the evolution of diseases. This study aims to identify the leading journals over the last 25 years (1990–2014) according to a wide range of bibliometric indicators.

Methods

The study develops a bibliometric overview of all the journals that are currently indexed in Web of Science (WoS) database in any of the four categories connected to health research. The work classifies health research in nine subfields: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Health Management and Economics, Health Promotion and Health Behavior, Epidemiology, Health Policy and Services, Medicine, Health Informatics, Engineering and Technology, and Primary Care.

Results

The results indicate a wide dispersion between categories being the American Journal of Epidemiology, Environmental Health Perspectives, American Journal of Public Health, and Social Science & Medicine, the journals that have received the highest number of citations over the last 25 years. According to other indicators such as the h-index and the citations per paper, some other journals such as the Annual Review of Public Health and Medical Care, obtain better results which show the wide diversity and profiles of outlets available in the scientific community. The results are grouped and studied according to the nine subfields in order to identify the leading journals in each specific sub discipline of health.

Conclusions

The work identifies the leading journals in health research through a bibliometric approach. The analysis shows a deep overview of the results of health journals. It is worth noting that many journals have entered the WoS database during the last years, in many cases to fill some specific niche that has emerged in the literature, although the most popular ones have been in the database for a long time.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12992-016-0186-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Bibliometric map of research done in primary care in Spain during the period 2008-2012]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the Spanish scientific production of primary care during 2008-2012.

DESIGN

Observational study bibliometric.

SETTING

Spanish scientific production in primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

The study focused on publications indexed in Medline.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

In each record was obtained journal, year of publication, first/last author, workplace and autonomous community. Later, articles were classified according to their content or areas of research. The impact factor was obtained from the basis of bibliometric analysis Journal Citation Reports.

RESULTS

Using search criteria, were selected 1,048 documents. The transiency rate was 62.6%. Production increased from 170 papers in 2008 to 291 in 2012. Most (65.7%) came from health centers, but we observed a significant increase (P=.01) of the articles from units or research institutes (5.9% in 2008, 12.0% in 2012). Of the total, 61.6% were classified as «clinical aspects», 22.5% were published in the journal Atención Primaria, 80.5% in journals with impact factor and 33.49% in foreign journals, being higher this proportion (P<.001) in units or research institutes (70.5% vs. 29.8%). In relation to population (articles/100.000 inhab.), the most productive communities were Cataluña (4.1), Castilla-La Mancha (3.6), Aragón (3.4) and Navarra (3.4).

CONCLUSIONS

In primary care publications there is great diversity in both research areas such as in journals where published. Most are from health centers, treat clinical aspects and published in Spanish journals. Differences in the volume of scientific production between regions are observed.