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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Malavolta, Eduardo Angeli, Gobbi, Riccardo Gomes, Mancuso Filho, José Antonio, Demange, Marco Kawamura
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