Assessment of publication output in the field of general practice and family medicine and by general practitioners and general practice institutions

S. Jelercic · Wolfgang Spiegel · Otto Pichlhöfer

26 citations0/0 files storedFamily Practice

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Writing and Publishing Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

PURPOSE: The discipline of family medicine (FM) lacks a comprehensive methodology, which can be applied as a standard for assessing overall research output in both the field of FM and by general practitioners (GPs)/general practice institutions. It was the aim of this study to develop a sensitive search strategy for assessing publication output in the field of FM independent of the author's profession or affiliation and by GPs/general practice institutions independent of their field of scientific interest. METHODS: Literature searches limited to the year 2005 were conducted in PubMed and ISI Web of Sciences (ISI WoS). In PubMed, all relevant MeSH terms were used. Search terms possibly contained in the author's affiliations have been collected. In ISI WoS, the same entry terms including their abbreviations and plural forms were applied. The final queries were validated by manual review and matching results with selected FM journals. RESULTS: A comprehensive list of combined search terms could be defined. For the field of general practice/FM more publications could be retrieved in PubMed. Almost twice as many publications by GPs/general practice institutions could be retrieved in ISI WoS, where--in contrast to PubMed--the affiliation is documented for all authors. CONCLUSIONS: To quantitatively assess publication output in the field of FM, PubMed was identified as the preferable database. To assess publication output by GPs/general practice institutions, the ISI WoS is recommended as the preferable database. Apparently, the ISI WoS is more suitable to compare the research productivity of different countries, authors or institutions.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

2007Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses 1994Understanding and Using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Vocabulary to Perform Literature Searches 2006Measures for measures 2003Global health improvement and WHO: shaping the future 2002Identifying Diagnostic Studies in MEDLINE: Reducing the Number Needed to Read 2006Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in medline and embase 2003Radiological research in Europe: a bibliometric study 1994Searching the Literature

Cited by

2020A scientometric analysis on coronaviruses research (1900–2020): Time for a continuous, cooperative and global approach 2015Development and Validation of Search Filters to Identify Articles on Family Medicine in Online Medical Databases 2017Primary health care research in Saudi Arabia: A quantitative analysis.2014Research publications in medical journals (1992-2013) by family medicine authors - Suez Canal University-Egypt 2022Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Productivity on Vitamin D and Bone Metabolism (2001–2020): Learn from the Past to Plan Future

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.