暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Now in my fifth year as editor, I have gained insights into the publishing process that I was not fully aware of as an author. I would like to share some of these insights and suggestions for prospective authors considering s.

UNASSIGNED: The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal (MOJ) (ISSN 1985-2533 / 2232-111X) is the official publication of the Malaysian Orthopaedic Association (MOA) and the ASEAN Orthopaedic Association (AOA). In May 2007, MOA published the first standalone issue of MOJ with the aim of disseminating new knowledge and providing updates in orthopaedics, trauma and musculoskeletal research. Since then, MOJ has grown significantly, achieving indexing in numerous databases and attaining a 2nd Quartile (Q2) rank in the Scopus database in 2022. This bibliometric analysis aims to explore the trends and distribution of articles published in MOJ.
UNASSIGNED: Bibliometric data for MOJ was extracted from the SCOPUS database, covering the years from its indexing to 2022. Information such as authors, country, document type, author\'s keywords, citations, and other parameters were extracted using the bibliometrix package in the R Studio software. The data were then presented in tables and illustrative graphs using the same software.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 305 articles were retrieved from the Scopus database during the study period. Two-thirds of the articles were original articles and review articles. The highest number of citations received by an article is 56, and top ten articles in MOJ were authored by researchers from seven different countries, highlighting the journal\'s diversity. Despite receiving submissions from various countries, there is minimal collaboration between authors of different countries. Keywords such as \"covid-19\" and \"pandemic\" dominate the authors\' keyword section due to the once-in-a-life-time COVID-19 which during the study period, resulting in numerous publications related to this issue.
UNASSIGNED: This bibliometric analysis reviews all the articles indexed in the Scopus database and provides insight into the contributors\' information and the trends in orthopaedic research. By identifying the lack of collaboration between countries, it is hoped that this analysis can inspire more orthopaedic surgeons and researchers to collaborate and produce high-quality publications.

BACKGROUND: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship.
METHODS: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship.
RESULTS: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field.
CONCLUSIONS: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) emerged from McMaster University in the 1980-1990s, which emphasizes the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. The Health Information Research Unit (HiRU) was created at McMaster University in 1985 to support EBM. Early on, digital health informatics took the form of teaching clinicians how to search MEDLINE with modems and phone lines. Searching and retrieval of published articles were transformed as electronic platforms provided greater access to clinically relevant studies, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines, with PubMed playing a pivotal role. In the early 2000s, the HiRU introduced Clinical Queries-validated search filters derived from the curated, gold-standard, human-appraised Hedges dataset-to enhance the precision of searches, allowing clinicians to hone their queries based on study design, population, and outcomes. Currently, almost 1 million articles are added to PubMed annually. To filter through this volume of heterogenous publications for clinically important articles, the HiRU team and other researchers have been applying classical machine learning, deep learning, and, increasingly, large language models (LLMs). These approaches are built upon the foundation of gold-standard annotated datasets and humans in the loop for active machine learning. In this viewpoint, we explore the evolution of health informatics in supporting evidence search and retrieval processes over the past 25+ years within the HiRU, including the evolving roles of LLMs and responsible artificial intelligence, as we continue to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge, enabling clinicians to integrate the best available evidence into their clinical practice.

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study\'s dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) poses a significant quandary about public health. It is challenging to study the literature in a particular discipline comprehensively today. One solution is bibliometric analysis, which is often used to track the attributes and evolutionary trajectories of scientific outputs.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the 35-year scientific evolution of articles focused on HCV.
METHODS: This study examined the 35-year scientific evolution of articles focused on HCV. Our study utilized the Web of Science database. The study encompassed a total of 11930 articles.
RESULTS: Regarding the cumulative count of articles, the leading countries are the United States, Japan, and Italy. Rice CM is the author with the highest recorded H-index and G-index values. The journal with the highest recorded H-index and G-index values is the Journal of Virology. The Journal of Viral Hepatitis contributed 10.94% of the articles, whereas the Journal of Virology published 9.68%. According to the strategic diagram, the keywords most frequently used in 2020-2022 are HCV, epidemiology, and sofosbuvir.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable information about 40 years of academic knowledge on HCV.

Scientific evidence develops bit by bit from case reports, case series; to larger case-control, case-cohort; and further escalate to randomized controlled trials. This echoed the importance of continue publishing World journal of Clinical Cases, where novel and advancing discoveries start from a single case. In contrast, at the other end of the realm of evidence synthesis, systematic review and meta-analysis represent distinct yet interconnected processes. Butorphanol in epidural labor analgesia has long been studied since 1989, and with 70 publications from MEDLINE searches. However, there was no meta-analysis, nor any systematic review published so far. The latest in-press article published by Tang et al. on the protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness of butorphanol in epidural labor analgesia is encouraging. We believe the findings of this study will be valuable for clinical practice as well as for future research.

暂无摘要。