Cargando…
Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010()
OBJECTIVE: Profile analysis of articles from scientific journals is rare in our country. The aim of this study was to perform an analysis of publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (RBO), to specify the designs of the studies and their level of evidence. METHODS: All articles published i...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31214534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2012.06.004 |
_version_ | 1783426734324973568 |
---|---|
author | Malavolta, Eduardo Angeli Gobbi, Riccardo Gomes Mancuso Filho, José Antonio Demange, Marco Kawamura |
author_facet | Malavolta, Eduardo Angeli Gobbi, Riccardo Gomes Mancuso Filho, José Antonio Demange, Marco Kawamura |
author_sort | Malavolta, Eduardo Angeli |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Profile analysis of articles from scientific journals is rare in our country. The aim of this study was to perform an analysis of publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (RBO), to specify the designs of the studies and their level of evidence. METHODS: All articles published in RBO from January 2006 to December 2010 were classified according to the design of the study. The clinical studies were further stratified according to the level of evidence, in agreement with the norm of the journal. The studies classified as randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs) had their quality assessed by the system proposed by Jadad. RESULTS: In this period, there were 376 articles published in RBO. Clinical studies represented most of the papers, with 60.64% of the total. Case series represented 61.4% of the clinical studies. Thirteen RCTs were published, accounting for 3.46% of the total, and 5.7% of the clinical studies. The analysis of the quality of the RCTs showed that 5 (38.46%) were considered high quality, while 8 (61.54%) were of low quality. Among the studies in which the level of evidence does not apply (non-clinical), non-systematic reviews (46 articles) and basic research (40 articles) have prevailed, representing 12.23% and 10.64% respectively of the total. CONCLUSIONS: Case series were the most prevalent (37.23%) studies published in RBO between 2006 and 2010, while RCTs accounted for 3.46% of the articles. The majority of RCTs (61.54%) were considered low quality, and only 1.32% of the clinical studies were classified as level I evidence. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6565864 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65658642019-06-18 Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010() Malavolta, Eduardo Angeli Gobbi, Riccardo Gomes Mancuso Filho, José Antonio Demange, Marco Kawamura Rev Bras Ortop Original Article OBJECTIVE: Profile analysis of articles from scientific journals is rare in our country. The aim of this study was to perform an analysis of publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (RBO), to specify the designs of the studies and their level of evidence. METHODS: All articles published in RBO from January 2006 to December 2010 were classified according to the design of the study. The clinical studies were further stratified according to the level of evidence, in agreement with the norm of the journal. The studies classified as randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs) had their quality assessed by the system proposed by Jadad. RESULTS: In this period, there were 376 articles published in RBO. Clinical studies represented most of the papers, with 60.64% of the total. Case series represented 61.4% of the clinical studies. Thirteen RCTs were published, accounting for 3.46% of the total, and 5.7% of the clinical studies. The analysis of the quality of the RCTs showed that 5 (38.46%) were considered high quality, while 8 (61.54%) were of low quality. Among the studies in which the level of evidence does not apply (non-clinical), non-systematic reviews (46 articles) and basic research (40 articles) have prevailed, representing 12.23% and 10.64% respectively of the total. CONCLUSIONS: Case series were the most prevalent (37.23%) studies published in RBO between 2006 and 2010, while RCTs accounted for 3.46% of the articles. The majority of RCTs (61.54%) were considered low quality, and only 1.32% of the clinical studies were classified as level I evidence. Elsevier 2013-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6565864/ /pubmed/31214534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2012.06.004 Text en © 2013 Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Published by Elsevier Editora. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Malavolta, Eduardo Angeli Gobbi, Riccardo Gomes Mancuso Filho, José Antonio Demange, Marco Kawamura Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010() |
title | Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010() |
title_full | Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010() |
title_fullStr | Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010() |
title_full_unstemmed | Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010() |
title_short | Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010() |
title_sort | critical analysis of scientific publications of the revista brasileira de ortopedia from 2006 to 2010() |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31214534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2012.06.004 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT malavoltaeduardoangeli criticalanalysisofscientificpublicationsoftherevistabrasileiradeortopediafrom2006to2010 AT gobbiriccardogomes criticalanalysisofscientificpublicationsoftherevistabrasileiradeortopediafrom2006to2010 AT mancusofilhojoseantonio criticalanalysisofscientificpublicationsoftherevistabrasileiradeortopediafrom2006to2010 AT demangemarcokawamura criticalanalysisofscientificpublicationsoftherevistabrasileiradeortopediafrom2006to2010 |