评估在巴西口腔病学大会上提出的研究的证据水平

Q4 Medicine Journal of Coloproctology Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1055/s-0043-1772782
Hugo Samartine Junior, Lucas Rosasco Mazzini, Daniel Ferreira Paiva, Nicole Goldenberg Levy, Lauro Igor Silva, José Luís Braga de Aquino, Elisa Donalisio Teixeira Mendes
{"title":"评估在巴西口腔病学大会上提出的研究的证据水平","authors":"Hugo Samartine Junior, Lucas Rosasco Mazzini, Daniel Ferreira Paiva, Nicole Goldenberg Levy, Lauro Igor Silva, José Luís Braga de Aquino, Elisa Donalisio Teixeira Mendes","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1772782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction Scientific studies in Brazil grew around 10.7% compared to previous years. However, the level of quality of evidence has been decreasing. The aim in our study is to examine the meeting abstracts of the Brazilian congress of coloproctology and analyze the level of evidence in trends and variables. Methods A descriptive bibliometric study, working with secondary data to review scientific abstracts in the annals of the coloproctology congress from 2015 to 2019. Results A total of 1756 abstracts of the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology were analyzed for 5 years (2015-2019). There was a higher trend of abstracts presented with lower levels of evidence (level of evidence 5: 52.3% and 3: 30%), being the majority composed of case reports (49.4%) and retrospective studies (30.4%). The last two years analyzed (2018: 55.2% and 2019: 59.3%) had a predominance above average of case reports. From 2017 to 2019 there was a significant decrease in the number of level 2 evidence studies (18.10%,11.80% and 5.50%), while the number of studies with level 5 evidence showed an increase (45.60%, 56.60% and 61.40%). Statistical analysis occurred in only 17%, with an important decrease for the last two years (2018: 13.6%; 2019: 12.1%). Conclusions Although the data of this study is from the Brazilian coloproctology point of view, they are important for the global scientific community, as they allow a quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution from the level of evidence of Brazilian coloproctology researchers to the scientific scenario.","PeriodicalId":15408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Coloproctology","volume":"129 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Level of Evidence of Presented Studies at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology\",\"authors\":\"Hugo Samartine Junior, Lucas Rosasco Mazzini, Daniel Ferreira Paiva, Nicole Goldenberg Levy, Lauro Igor Silva, José Luís Braga de Aquino, Elisa Donalisio Teixeira Mendes\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0043-1772782\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Introduction Scientific studies in Brazil grew around 10.7% compared to previous years. However, the level of quality of evidence has been decreasing. The aim in our study is to examine the meeting abstracts of the Brazilian congress of coloproctology and analyze the level of evidence in trends and variables. Methods A descriptive bibliometric study, working with secondary data to review scientific abstracts in the annals of the coloproctology congress from 2015 to 2019. Results A total of 1756 abstracts of the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology were analyzed for 5 years (2015-2019). There was a higher trend of abstracts presented with lower levels of evidence (level of evidence 5: 52.3% and 3: 30%), being the majority composed of case reports (49.4%) and retrospective studies (30.4%). The last two years analyzed (2018: 55.2% and 2019: 59.3%) had a predominance above average of case reports. From 2017 to 2019 there was a significant decrease in the number of level 2 evidence studies (18.10%,11.80% and 5.50%), while the number of studies with level 5 evidence showed an increase (45.60%, 56.60% and 61.40%). Statistical analysis occurred in only 17%, with an important decrease for the last two years (2018: 13.6%; 2019: 12.1%). Conclusions Although the data of this study is from the Brazilian coloproctology point of view, they are important for the global scientific community, as they allow a quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution from the level of evidence of Brazilian coloproctology researchers to the scientific scenario.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Coloproctology\",\"volume\":\"129 9\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Coloproctology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1772782\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1772782","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与前几年相比,巴西的科学研究增长了10.7%左右。然而,证据的质量水平一直在下降。在我们的研究目的是检查会议摘要的巴西大会直肠和分析的证据水平的趋势和变量。方法采用描述性文献计量学研究,利用二手资料对2015 - 2019年结肠直肠学大会年鉴中的科学摘要进行综述。结果对2015-2019年5年巴西结肠直肠学大会的1756篇摘要进行分析。证据水平较低的摘要呈较高趋势(证据水平分别为5:52 .3%和3:30 %),以病例报告(49.4%)和回顾性研究(30.4%)为主。过去两年(2018年:55.2%和2019年:59.3%)的病例报告高于平均水平。2017 - 2019年,2级证据研究数量显著减少(分别为18.10%、11.80%和5.50%),5级证据研究数量显著增加(分别为45.60%、56.60%和61.40%)。统计分析仅占17%,过去两年大幅下降(2018年:13.6%;2019年:12.1%)。尽管本研究的数据来自巴西肛肠学的观点,但它们对全球科学界很重要,因为它们允许对巴西肛肠学研究人员的证据水平对科学情景的相对贡献进行定量评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessing the Level of Evidence of Presented Studies at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology
Abstract Introduction Scientific studies in Brazil grew around 10.7% compared to previous years. However, the level of quality of evidence has been decreasing. The aim in our study is to examine the meeting abstracts of the Brazilian congress of coloproctology and analyze the level of evidence in trends and variables. Methods A descriptive bibliometric study, working with secondary data to review scientific abstracts in the annals of the coloproctology congress from 2015 to 2019. Results A total of 1756 abstracts of the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology were analyzed for 5 years (2015-2019). There was a higher trend of abstracts presented with lower levels of evidence (level of evidence 5: 52.3% and 3: 30%), being the majority composed of case reports (49.4%) and retrospective studies (30.4%). The last two years analyzed (2018: 55.2% and 2019: 59.3%) had a predominance above average of case reports. From 2017 to 2019 there was a significant decrease in the number of level 2 evidence studies (18.10%,11.80% and 5.50%), while the number of studies with level 5 evidence showed an increase (45.60%, 56.60% and 61.40%). Statistical analysis occurred in only 17%, with an important decrease for the last two years (2018: 13.6%; 2019: 12.1%). Conclusions Although the data of this study is from the Brazilian coloproctology point of view, they are important for the global scientific community, as they allow a quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution from the level of evidence of Brazilian coloproctology researchers to the scientific scenario.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Coloproctology
Journal of Coloproctology Medicine-Gastroenterology
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
47 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Salvia officinalis in the Treatment of Acetic Acid-Induced Ulcerative Colitis in a Rat Model Unusual Case of Colonic Intussusception Caused by Angiolipoma: Case Report and Literature Review Vegetating Lesions that Appear in the Scar after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Tumors: Tumor Regrowth or Benign Neoplasm? Retrospective Study of Patients Submitted to Appendectomy in a Tertiary Hospital: Is There a Difference between the Public and Supplementary Health System? Pilonidal Sinus of the Anal Canal: A Rare Entity - Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1