Navegando por Palavras-chave "Impact Factor"

Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
  • Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
    Item
    Somente Metadadados
    Características De Revisões Sistemáticas Cochrane Versus Revisões Sistemáticas Publicadas Em Revistas De Alto Fator De Impacto
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2017-12-20) Porfirio, Gustavo Jose Martiniano [UNIFESP]; Riera, Rachel [UNIFESP]; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
    Introduction: The systematic review consists of the application of strategies that limit the risk of bias in the gathering, critical evaluation and synthesis of all relevant studies on a subject. It is considered as the best source of evidence for informed decision and has, as main aspects, clear eligibility criteria; explicit and reproducible methods; high sensitivity search looking for all relevant studies on the subject; critical appraisal of included studies; and systematic synthesis of the results of included studies. Despite the recent appreciation of systematic reviews and a significant increase in the number of publications with this design, there are several doubts about the quality of these publications in a global way. Although the limitations of using the impact factor for journal metrics, it is thought that the higher citation numbers of high impact factor journals identify that these reviews are as well executed as the Cochrane systematic reviews. Objective: To evaluate the characteristics of systematic reviews published in high impact factor journals compared to the reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews regarding the presence of adequate content for critical appraisal of the publication. The hypothesis of this study was that the characteristics would be similar. Study design: A cross-sectional study. Sample: We included systematic reviews of the literature published in 2015 in journals of high impact factor or published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Outcomes: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the systematic reviews based on PRISMA Statement and other complementary information. Statistical methods: No sample size calculation was performed. We analyzed all the systematic reviews published in high impact factor journals published in the year 2015 and their number was the criterion for defining the sample size of the other reviews (Cochrane reviews) included in the research. Results: Of the 134 studies included in the analyzes two groups studied (67 Cochrane and 67 journals of high impact factor), the following characteristics presented a significantly higher frequency in Cochrane reviews: a) provide at least one search strategy; b) does not restrict the search and / or selection of studies by language; c) do not use restriction of the search by year of publication; d) conduct the search for non-indexed studies; e) conducting the search in databases of clinical trials records; f) description duplicity for selection and extraction of data; g) description of method to resolve disagreements; h) description of the criteria for meta-analysis; and i) description of criteria for sensitivity or subgroup analysis; j) information on characteristics of excluded studies; l) information about ongoing studies; m) presentation of bias risk per study; n) indication of registration of the revision or of the existence of a previous protocol; o) presentation of a summary table of the findings; p) use of the GRADE approach; q) refer to the assessment of the quality of the evidence at the conclusion. Conclusion: Significant differences were observed between systematic reviews published by Cochrane and journals of high impact factor in relation to key items related to the quality of publications. The Cochrane publications presented a greater detail of the description of critical items in relation to the others, despite the lower number of gross citations observed in the sample and the lower impact factor in relation to the periodicals analyzed
  • Imagem de Miniatura
    Item
    Acesso aberto (Open Access)
    Indicadores bibliométricos das Revistas de Enfermagem sob a ótica das bases indexadoras
    (Univ Sao Paolo, 2017) Avena, Magdalena Jose [UNIFESP]; Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida [UNIFESP]
    Objective: To analyze the bibliometric indicators of the national and international journals in the area of nursing from the perspective of index databases. Method: A historical cohort referring to the period of 2014 to 2016. National nursing journals indexed in the SciELO database and classified in the Qualis as A1, A2 and B1, and international nursing journals with impact factor above 1.0 and below 1.8, indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus Bases, were selected. Nursing specialty periodicals were excluded. The bibliometric indicators were collected from the index databases and imported into Ms Excel for analysis and data tabulation. Results: The bibliometric indicators of the different index databases are divergent and cannot be compared. Lower title coverage and shorter calculation periods amplify the distortions between the indicators of national and international journals. Conclusion: The internationalization criteria imposed on national journals do not contribute to obtaining or increasing the impact factor. A broader coverage of indexed titles and a longer calculation period for citations represent a significant difference in results. The h-index and CiteScore appear to be better impact indicators for national nursing research.