Search

Aim: Contribution to the authorship, including that for case reports, should be appropriately evaluated. I have noticed a scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors listed as coauthors, prompting this investigation. I sought to offer suggestions on the possible reasons for this trend. Methods: I checked case reports published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, the Journal of Medical Case Reports, and the BMJ Case Reports. I identified case reports listing a clinic doctor as a coauthor. I consulted eight professors at Jichi Medical University to ascertain whether case reports from their departments included clinic doctors as coauthors and, if not, the reasons. Results: Among 65 case reports from Japanese institutes published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, only one paper lists a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Of 100 and 50 papers published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BMJ Case Reports, respectively, none listed a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Six out of eight professors admitted to never considering the idea of including clinic doctors as coauthors. Conclusions: The scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors as coauthors extends beyond Japanese obstetrics and gynecology, encompassing various specialties worldwide. Center doctors do not think of the idea that a clinic doctor should be a coauthor. A clinic doctor who transferred the patient should be considered as a candidate coauthor depending on his/her scientific contribution. Such an approach could foster an environment encouraging doctors to contribute to academic writing, regardless of their workplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pectoral nerve blocks (Pecs I and Pecs II) are superficial thoracic wall blocks which block the pectoral and intercostal nerves. They can be used as analgesia/anesthesia for breast surgery and other procedures/surgeries involving the anterior chest wall (arteriovenous graft creation surgery, minimally invasive cardiac surgery and thoracotomy, etc.). The aim of this study is to evaluate publications in the scientific field of pectoral nerve blocks. ISI Web of Knowledge-Science was used for the analysis. All scientific works published included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) from 1975 to January 27, 2019, were analyzed. A retrospective search was performed using key words "pectoral nerve block," "PECS I," "PECS II," "pecs block," "PECS block,""Pecs I," "Pecs II," "PECS 1," "PECS 2," and "modified pecs I block." We further analyzed these results by the "analyze" function of the software in terms of number of papers for each country, type of documentation, number of publications per year, and name of journals and authors. The number of citations to published works was also calculated by using the citation function of the same software. 72 papers were found related to pectoral nerve block. The biggest contribution was from India (24.28%), and followed by Japan (14.28%), USA (14.28%), Canada (7.14%), Egypt (7.14%), Italy (5.71%), and South Korea (5.71%). The total number of publications increased sharply in years from 2014 (n = 1) to 2018 (n = 28). We have detected that papers on the use of pecs block in breast cancer surgery, which is one of the most common surgical procedure in the world, are few in the literature. With this study, we hope to increase the awareness on this area. We believe that pecs block applications will become widespread with the increasing use of ultrasound in anesthesia and the increase in education in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) has been investigated widely in the past 30 years, resulting in many research achievements in this field. Purpose: To perform a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to evaluate the 100 top-cited articles on the MPFL. Study design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: We searched the Scopus database in December 2022 using the terms "medial patellofemoral ligament" OR "MPFL." The search was confined to English-language articles, including technical notes, systematic reviews on clinical outcomes and/or complications, clinical studies, studies regarding complications, and basic science articles (either cadaveric or biomechanical); we excluded letters, case reports, personal opinions, guidelines, editorials, and narrative or other types of reviews. Analysis of the 100 top-cited articles was performed according to total number of citations, average citations per year (ACY), study type, country of origin, journal of publication, affiliated institution, and most published authors. Results: The total number of citations was 16,358 (range of citations per article, 72-692). The majority of articles were published as clinical studies (54%), with cadaveric studies being the second most common (21%). Most studies originated in the United States (32%), with Japan (15%) and Germany (13%) following. The American Journal of Sports Medicine published the majority of the 100 top-cited articles (37/100; 6304 citations) as well as the 10 top-cited articles according to ACY (7/10; mean, 285.14 citations). The most prolific authors were Nomura (8 articles); Burks (6 articles); and Inoue, Sillanpää, and Dreyhaupt (5 articles each). Conclusion: By analyzing the characteristics of the 100 top-cited articles, this study demonstrated that the MPFL is a growing and popular area of research, with the focus varying through timeline trends. Questions regarding MPFL anatomy, isometry, and biomechanics might have been answered adequately, but research regarding optimal fixation technique under various circumstances is still ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008–2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two‐thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]