Search

The title of an article is the main entrance for reading the full article. The aim of our work therefore is to examine differences of title content and form between original research articles and its changes over time. Using PubMed we examined title properties of 500 randomly chosen original research articles published in the general major medical journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM and PLOS Medicine between 2011 and 2020. Articles were manually evaluated with two independent raters. To analyze differences between journals and changes over time, we performed random effect meta-analyses and logistic regression models. Mentioning of results, providing any quantitative or semi-quantitative information, using a declarative title, a dash or a question mark were rarely used in the title in all considered journals. The use of a subtitle, methods-related items, such as mentioning of methods, clinical context or treatment increased over time (all p < 0.05), while the use of phrasal tiles decreased over time (p = 0.044). Not a single NEJM title contained a study name, while the Lancet had the highest usage of it (45%). The use of study names increased over time (per year odds ratio: 1.13 (95% CI: [1.03‒1.24]), p = 0.008). Investigating title content and form was time-consuming because some criteria could only be adequately evaluated by hand. Title content changed over time and differed substantially between the five major medical journals. Authors are advised to carefully study titles of journal articles in their target journal prior to manuscript submission., Competing Interests: There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. AZ is a licensed Tim Albert trainer. Tim Albert trainings deal with advising people how to write medical papers. AZ has held several courses in the past based on Albert’s concept. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and material., (Copyright: © 2023 Heßler, Ziegler. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Aim: This systematic review aims to investigate, identify, and compare evidence related to the barriers, enablers, and strategies to embedding translational research within a public hospital system focussed on nursing and allied health disciplines., Methods: A systematic review looking at the international literature on the barriers, enablers and strategies in embedding translational research within a public health system addressing nursing and allied health professions. The study channelled the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Databases searched were Medline, Embase, Scopus and Pubmed from January 2011 to December 2021 (inclusive). A quality assessment was conducted of literature using the mixed methods appraisal tool 2011 version., Results: Thirteen papers met the inclusion criteria. The studies included were from Australia, Saudi Arabia, China, Denmark and Canada. Occupational therapy and physiotherapy were the only two allied health disciplines identified in the search process. The review found considerable inter-relationships between the enablers, barriers, and strategies to embedding research translation in a public hospital setting. Three over-arching themes 'leadership, organisational culture and capabilities' were developed to capture the complexity of factors in embedding translational research. Key subthemes identified were education, knowledge, management, time, workplace culture and resources. All thirteen articles identified that a multifactorial approach is required to embed a research culture and translate research findings into clinical practice., Conclusions: The themes of leadership, organisational culture and capabilities are inherently intertwined and therefore successful strategies require a whole of health approach with organisational leadership driving the strategy, as changing organisational culture takes time and considerable investment. We recommend that public health organisations, senior executives and policy makers consider the findings of this review to provide evidence to initiate organisational changes to support and help create a research environment to drive research translation within the public sector., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Smith, Johnson. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

This paper uses extensive database research, film viewing and literature review to show how the field of surgery was staged in the early days of film history. It can be shown that-although surgical medicine was a subject in transition, and many scientific breakthroughs (anesthesia und antisepsis) made surgery less painful and more complication-free-filmmakers still frequently resorted to horror memories of the past and created a questionable, or ambivalent image of the surgeon, sometimes as extreme as the "lunatic with a scalpel" stereotype, blurring the line between genius and madness. But there were also positive staging's: The surgical intervention was often captured on the screen as a last resort for clinically hopeless cases, with the surgeon often presented as a "deus ex machina", the savior out of nowhere. Other specialties, however, such as plastic surgery, were mostly positively dramatized, which reveals a stark contrast to research about the representation of the field in the sound film era. A view at the fields of neurosurgery and (selectively) opthalmo-surgery rounds out the panorama of forty-one surgical films. In summary, it is shown that the early surgical film depicts the specialty and the surgeon in a highly ambivalent way, from savior to monster thereby reflecting one of the most significant transitions in the history of surgery and showing us what image was presented to the public-and thus to potential patients-in the movie theaters., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Dennis Henkel. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The main goal of this paper is to examine Nobel Prize data by studying the association among the laureate's country of birth or residence, discipline, time period in which the Nobel Prize was awarded, and gender of the recipient. Multiple correspondence analysis is used as a tool to examine the association between these four categorical variables by cross classifying them in the form of a four-way contingency table. The data that we examine comprise Nobel Prize recipients from 1901 to 2018 (inclusive) from eight-developed countries, with a total sample of 785 Nobel Prize recipients. The countries include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the British Isles, and the USA and the disciplines in which the individuals were awarded the prizes include chemistry, physics, physiology or medicine, literature, economics, and peace., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine who received the Prize between 1969 and 2011 are compared to a matched group of scientists to examine productivity, impact, coauthorship and international collaboration patterns embedded within research networks. After matching for research domain, h-index, and year of first of publication, we compare bibliometric statistics and network measures. We find that the Laureates produce fewer papers but with higher average citations. The Laureates also produce more sole-authored papers both before and after winning the Prize. The Laureates have a lower number of coauthors across their entire careers than the matched group, but are equally collaborative on average. Further, we find no differences in international collaboration patterns. The Laureates coauthor network reveals significant differences from the non-Laureate network. Laureates are more likely to build bridges across a network when measuring by average degree, density, modularity, and communities. Both the Laureate and non-Laureate networks have "small world" properties, but the Laureates appear to exploit "structural holes" by reaching across the network in a brokerage style that may add social capital to the network. The dynamic may be making the network itself highly attractive and selective. These findings suggest new insights into the role "star scientists" in social networks and the production of scientific discoveries.

Background: At the same time as there is increasing awareness in medicine of the risks of exaggerating differences between men and women, there is a growing professional movement of 'gender-specific medicine' which is directed towards analysing 'sex' and 'gender' differences. The aim of this article is to empirically explore how the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender' are used in the new field of 'gender-specific medicine', as reflected in two medical journals which are foundational to this relatively new field., Method and Principal Findings: The data consist of all articles from the first issue of each journal in 2004 and an issue published three years later (n = 43). In addition, all editorials over this period were included (n = 61). Quantitative and qualitative content analyses were undertaken by the authors. Less than half of the 104 papers used the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender'. Less than 1 in 10 papers attempted any definition of the concepts. Overall, the given definitions were simple, unspecific and created dualisms between men and women. Almost all papers which used the two concepts did so interchangeably, with any possible interplay between 'sex' and gender' referred to only in six of the papers., Conclusion: The use of the concepts of 'sex' and gender' in 'gender-specific medicine' is conceptually muddled. The simple, dualistic and individualised use of these concepts increases the risk of essentialism and reductivist thinking. It therefore highlights the need to clarify the use of the terms 'sex' and 'gender' in medical research and to develop more effective ways of conceptualising the interplay between 'sex' and 'gender' in relation to different diseases.

Background: Influential medical journals shape medical science and practice and their prestige is usually appraised by citation impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor. However, how permanent are medical journals and how stable is their impact over time?, Methods and Results: We evaluated what happened to general medical journals that were publishing papers half a century ago, in 1959. Data were retrieved from ISI Web of Science for citations and PubMed (Journals function) for journal history. Of 27 eligible journals publishing in 1959, 4 have stopped circulation (including two of the most prestigious journals in 1959) and another 7 changed name between 1959 and 2009. Only 6 of these 27 journals have been published continuously with their initial name since they started circulation. The citation impact of papers published in 1959 gives a very different picture from the current journal impact factor; the correlation between the two is non-significant and very close to zero. Only 13 of the 5,223 papers published in 1959 received at least 5 citations in 2009., Conclusions: Journals are more permanent entities than single papers, but they are also subject to major change and their relative prominence can change markedly over time.