NAGIOS: RODERIC FUNCIONANDO

Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis

Repositori DSpace/Manakin

IMPORTANT: Aquest repositori està en una versió antiga des del 3/12/2023. La nova instal.lació está en https://roderic.uv.es/

Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis

dc.contributor.author	Catalá López, Ferrán	es_ES
dc.contributor.author	Alonso Arroyo, Adolfo	es_ES
dc.contributor.author	Hutton, Brian	es_ES
dc.contributor.author	Aleixandre Benavent, Rafael	es_ES
dc.contributor.author	Moher, David	es_ES
dc.date.accessioned	2015-06-05T12:40:30Z
dc.date.available	2015-06-05T12:40:30Z
dc.date.issued	2014
dc.identifier.citation	BMC Medicine Vol. 12 pp. 15-15	es_ES
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10550/44190
dc.description.abstract	BackgroundResearch collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta-analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded.ResultsOverall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland).ConclusionsOur analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries publishing meta-analyses of randomized trials in high impact medical journals. This valuable information may be used to strengthen scientific capacity for collaboration and to help to promote a global agenda for future research of excellence.	es_ES
dc.subject	Authorship	es_ES
dc.subject	Evidence-based medicine	es_ES
dc.subject	Meta-analysis	es_ES
dc.subject	Randomized controlled trial	es_ES
dc.subject	Scientific collaboration	es_ES
dc.subject	Social network analysis	es_ES
dc.title	Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis	es_ES
dc.type	journal article	es_ES
dc.identifier.doi	10.1186/1741-7015-12-15	es_ES
dc.identifier.idgrec	094792	es_ES