- Email: [email protected]
Citation analysis of the ‘big six’ journals in internal medicine
Abstracts
RO
OF
papers. The B6 include the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Internal Medicine (AnnIM) and Archives of Internal Medicine (ArchIM). Their high impact is reflected in the omnipresence of citations to B6 papers in medical publications in other journals as well as in the B6 journals themselves. We hypothesized firstly that B6 journals often cite publications from their own journal (autocitations) and secondly that publications from their own journal are cited instead of more recent papers from other journals. This study was performed to evaluate the citing patterns of B6 journals. We evaluated autocitations as well as citations to other B6-journals in terms of frequency and year of publication of the cited papers. Material and methods: Original clinical trials published in B6 journals between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2012 were identified through NCBI Pubmed. Citation lists of these publications were obtained using Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge. We distinguished three categories: autocitations (citations to papers published in the host journal); B6 citations (citations to papers in B6 journals including autocitations); and other citations (citations to non-B6 journals). Statistics were performed by Chi-square, Kruskal–Wallis and Mann– Whitney U tests using SPSS 17.0. Results: A total of 462 trials were identified with an aggregate of 14,717 citations. Autocitation ranged from 2.5%–1.3% (AnnIM = 2.5%, ArchIM = 4.5%, BMJ = 4.8%, JAMA = 4.8%, Lancet = 6.5%, NEJM = 11.2%). The share of B6 citations ranged from 14.8 to 23% (BMJ = 14.8%, JAMA = 16.4%, AnnIM = 16.9%, Lancet = 19.2%, NEJM = 20.0%, ArchIM = 23.0%). The average proportion of autocitations to B6 citations across the B6 journals was 37.6% varying between 14.8% (AnnIM) and 56.4% (NEJM) (p b .001). Among B6 publications, the median number of autocitations was 2 (IQR = 1–3, p b 0.01) and the median number of B6 citations was 5 (IQR = 3–8, p = 0.42). Autocitations were a median number of 5 years old (IQR = 2–9) which was comparable to non-autocitations except for autocitations in the NEJM which were more recent than other citations (median 4 vs 5 year, p = 0.024). For all journals B6 citations were of comparable publication year as nonB6 citations (median 6 vs 5 years, p = .17). Discussion and conclusion: In the investigated trials the B6 journals differ in their share of autocitations, but all cite the B6 class for a total of nearly 20% of citations. The NEJM is the journal with the highest rate of autocitation. Autocitations or B6 citations were not older or newer than other citations, except for the NEJM in which autocitations are significantly more recent than other citations. The findings might be associated with the ranking of the B6 journals in terms of impact factor.
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
DP
Objective: To analyze the most prevalent patient safety issues along with risk and process-adjusted complications in a General Internal Medicine Ward. Methods: Setting: 3rd level, University teaching hospital with a reference population of ≈500,000. General Internal Medicine Ward comprising approximately of 50 beds out of a 750 total. Data gathering: Process-adjusted major complications were retrieved by the Hospital's Codification System after having the relevant discharge reports codified (ICD 9). Major patient-related safety indicators were retrieved via the clinical benchmarking software Iametrics (R). This package allows for intra-Center comparisons regarding previous periods as well as inter-Center (Center–Benchmark) comparisons. Study period and variables: Study period ranged from January 2010 to March 2012. Process and risk-adjusted complications were measured as the ratio discharges/reported complications (percentage) within Diagnostic Related Groups (DRG). Expected percentages were also given. Finally, each DRG related complication ratio was weighed as its individual contribution towards the total burden of complications. Major patient safety issues were expressed as the ratio reported issues/available discharge data (‰) and were also compared with the previous period. These included pressure ulcers (PU), death among low risk diagnostic groups (DLRDG), iatrogenic pneumothorax (IP), major infections after medical procedures (IMP), major bleeding after medical procedures (MB) and pulmonary embolism after medical procedures (PE). Results: 8 DRG accounted for the 75% of the higher-than expected complication burden. The results are given as (observed rate, expected rate, individual contribution). These were “Circulatory disorders barring AMI with major complications” (11.42%, 4.57%, 19.61%), “Respiratory disorders barring infections, bronchitis and asthma with major complications” (8.95%, 3.93%, 17.7%), “Heart failure” (8.61%, 2.44%, 10.4%), “Disorders of the blood, hematopoietic or immune organs” (10%, 3.52%, 7.3%), “Sepsis” (12.78%, 8.94%, 5.74%), “ECMO or tracheostomy except for diagnose related to face, mouth or neck” (88.89%, 61.7%, 5.52%), “Disorders of the digestive tract with major complications” (9.76%, 5.77%, 5.52%) and “Major muscle-skeletal system intervention, barring major or multiple joint intervention, with major complications” (66.67%, 29.45%, 3.72%). 8 DRG accounted for most decrease in expected complication burden (7.4% percent of complication burden reduction). These were “COPD” (1.61%, 2.23%, −0.45%), “Bronchitis or asthma” (1.32%, 2.15%, −0.67%), “Infections and parasite infections barring sepsis” (2.38%, 3.16%, −0.78%), “Kidney and urinary tract infections” (1.27%, 2.66%, −1.24%), “Major surgery not related with main diagnose” (13.3%, 22.49%, −1.57%), “Respiratory infection or inflammation” (2.25%, 3.09%, −1.69%) and “HIV except surgical procedure barring tracheostomy” (1.68%, 4%, −3,15%). All the considered safety issues experienced a decline compared to the previous period, PU 26.92‰ vs 32.35‰, DLRDG 11.1‰ vs 17.24‰, IP 4.38‰ vs 6.44‰, IMP 16.8‰ vs 16.95‰, MB 6.33‰ vs 12.66‰ and PE 25.48‰ vs 37.97‰. Conclusions: Overall, major safety issues declined in our General Internal Medicine ward with the study period. However, common and important DRG in the setting of these kinds of wards are still the main sources for complications and measures need to be taken in order to experience a significant improvement in quality of standard of care.
e233
doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2013.08.596
ID: 460 Citation analysis of the ‘big six’ journals in internal medicine T. van der Veera, J.E. Baarsa, E. Birnieb, A.P. Hamberga a
Dept. of Internal Medicine, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, Netherlands Dept. of Statistics, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, Netherlands
b
Objective: In the field of internal medicine, the classic ‘big six’ (B6) journals are highly valued for the quality and impact of their
doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2013.08.597
ID: 490 Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and metabolic comorbidities R.B. Haider, S. Khattak, A. Naqvi, A.M. O'Connell, J. Power, M. Azam Gastroenterology/Respiratory/Internal Medicine, Naas General Hospital, Naas, Co Kildare, Ireland Aims: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of metabolic comorbidities in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients. Methods: In this retrospective study we did a chart review of 45 patients in a hospital based study to see the prevalence of metabolic conditions and effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) therapy. Study: We reviewed 45 patient charts and noted their age, weight or body mass index (BMI), their alcohol intake status, their lipid profile, estimated Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), ultrasound (US) findings, their cholesterol and other associations. The patients
RO
OF
papers. The B6 include the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Internal Medicine (AnnIM) and Archives of Internal Medicine (ArchIM). Their high impact is reflected in the omnipresence of citations to B6 papers in medical publications in other journals as well as in the B6 journals themselves. We hypothesized firstly that B6 journals often cite publications from their own journal (autocitations) and secondly that publications from their own journal are cited instead of more recent papers from other journals. This study was performed to evaluate the citing patterns of B6 journals. We evaluated autocitations as well as citations to other B6-journals in terms of frequency and year of publication of the cited papers. Material and methods: Original clinical trials published in B6 journals between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2012 were identified through NCBI Pubmed. Citation lists of these publications were obtained using Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge. We distinguished three categories: autocitations (citations to papers published in the host journal); B6 citations (citations to papers in B6 journals including autocitations); and other citations (citations to non-B6 journals). Statistics were performed by Chi-square, Kruskal–Wallis and Mann– Whitney U tests using SPSS 17.0. Results: A total of 462 trials were identified with an aggregate of 14,717 citations. Autocitation ranged from 2.5%–1.3% (AnnIM = 2.5%, ArchIM = 4.5%, BMJ = 4.8%, JAMA = 4.8%, Lancet = 6.5%, NEJM = 11.2%). The share of B6 citations ranged from 14.8 to 23% (BMJ = 14.8%, JAMA = 16.4%, AnnIM = 16.9%, Lancet = 19.2%, NEJM = 20.0%, ArchIM = 23.0%). The average proportion of autocitations to B6 citations across the B6 journals was 37.6% varying between 14.8% (AnnIM) and 56.4% (NEJM) (p b .001). Among B6 publications, the median number of autocitations was 2 (IQR = 1–3, p b 0.01) and the median number of B6 citations was 5 (IQR = 3–8, p = 0.42). Autocitations were a median number of 5 years old (IQR = 2–9) which was comparable to non-autocitations except for autocitations in the NEJM which were more recent than other citations (median 4 vs 5 year, p = 0.024). For all journals B6 citations were of comparable publication year as nonB6 citations (median 6 vs 5 years, p = .17). Discussion and conclusion: In the investigated trials the B6 journals differ in their share of autocitations, but all cite the B6 class for a total of nearly 20% of citations. The NEJM is the journal with the highest rate of autocitation. Autocitations or B6 citations were not older or newer than other citations, except for the NEJM in which autocitations are significantly more recent than other citations. The findings might be associated with the ranking of the B6 journals in terms of impact factor.
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
DP
Objective: To analyze the most prevalent patient safety issues along with risk and process-adjusted complications in a General Internal Medicine Ward. Methods: Setting: 3rd level, University teaching hospital with a reference population of ≈500,000. General Internal Medicine Ward comprising approximately of 50 beds out of a 750 total. Data gathering: Process-adjusted major complications were retrieved by the Hospital's Codification System after having the relevant discharge reports codified (ICD 9). Major patient-related safety indicators were retrieved via the clinical benchmarking software Iametrics (R). This package allows for intra-Center comparisons regarding previous periods as well as inter-Center (Center–Benchmark) comparisons. Study period and variables: Study period ranged from January 2010 to March 2012. Process and risk-adjusted complications were measured as the ratio discharges/reported complications (percentage) within Diagnostic Related Groups (DRG). Expected percentages were also given. Finally, each DRG related complication ratio was weighed as its individual contribution towards the total burden of complications. Major patient safety issues were expressed as the ratio reported issues/available discharge data (‰) and were also compared with the previous period. These included pressure ulcers (PU), death among low risk diagnostic groups (DLRDG), iatrogenic pneumothorax (IP), major infections after medical procedures (IMP), major bleeding after medical procedures (MB) and pulmonary embolism after medical procedures (PE). Results: 8 DRG accounted for the 75% of the higher-than expected complication burden. The results are given as (observed rate, expected rate, individual contribution). These were “Circulatory disorders barring AMI with major complications” (11.42%, 4.57%, 19.61%), “Respiratory disorders barring infections, bronchitis and asthma with major complications” (8.95%, 3.93%, 17.7%), “Heart failure” (8.61%, 2.44%, 10.4%), “Disorders of the blood, hematopoietic or immune organs” (10%, 3.52%, 7.3%), “Sepsis” (12.78%, 8.94%, 5.74%), “ECMO or tracheostomy except for diagnose related to face, mouth or neck” (88.89%, 61.7%, 5.52%), “Disorders of the digestive tract with major complications” (9.76%, 5.77%, 5.52%) and “Major muscle-skeletal system intervention, barring major or multiple joint intervention, with major complications” (66.67%, 29.45%, 3.72%). 8 DRG accounted for most decrease in expected complication burden (7.4% percent of complication burden reduction). These were “COPD” (1.61%, 2.23%, −0.45%), “Bronchitis or asthma” (1.32%, 2.15%, −0.67%), “Infections and parasite infections barring sepsis” (2.38%, 3.16%, −0.78%), “Kidney and urinary tract infections” (1.27%, 2.66%, −1.24%), “Major surgery not related with main diagnose” (13.3%, 22.49%, −1.57%), “Respiratory infection or inflammation” (2.25%, 3.09%, −1.69%) and “HIV except surgical procedure barring tracheostomy” (1.68%, 4%, −3,15%). All the considered safety issues experienced a decline compared to the previous period, PU 26.92‰ vs 32.35‰, DLRDG 11.1‰ vs 17.24‰, IP 4.38‰ vs 6.44‰, IMP 16.8‰ vs 16.95‰, MB 6.33‰ vs 12.66‰ and PE 25.48‰ vs 37.97‰. Conclusions: Overall, major safety issues declined in our General Internal Medicine ward with the study period. However, common and important DRG in the setting of these kinds of wards are still the main sources for complications and measures need to be taken in order to experience a significant improvement in quality of standard of care.
e233
doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2013.08.596
ID: 460 Citation analysis of the ‘big six’ journals in internal medicine T. van der Veera, J.E. Baarsa, E. Birnieb, A.P. Hamberga a
Dept. of Internal Medicine, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, Netherlands Dept. of Statistics, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, Netherlands
b
Objective: In the field of internal medicine, the classic ‘big six’ (B6) journals are highly valued for the quality and impact of their
doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2013.08.597
ID: 490 Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and metabolic comorbidities R.B. Haider, S. Khattak, A. Naqvi, A.M. O'Connell, J. Power, M. Azam Gastroenterology/Respiratory/Internal Medicine, Naas General Hospital, Naas, Co Kildare, Ireland Aims: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of metabolic comorbidities in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients. Methods: In this retrospective study we did a chart review of 45 patients in a hospital based study to see the prevalence of metabolic conditions and effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) therapy. Study: We reviewed 45 patient charts and noted their age, weight or body mass index (BMI), their alcohol intake status, their lipid profile, estimated Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), ultrasound (US) findings, their cholesterol and other associations. The patients