SynthesisSports health
Ten Years of
Synthesis in Sports health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering the past status and future tendency: a comprehensive scientometric study on developmental dysplasia of the hip.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Women's Footprint in Anti-Doping Sciences: A Bibliometric Approach to Research Impact.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
context
objectiveTo evaluate authorship trends and levels of evidence (LOE) of articles published in DATA SOURCES: All clinical studies published in STUDY SELECTION: All publications from the provided years were electronically reviewed by 2 reviewers and evaluated for inclusion criteria. Editorials, society news, memorials, letters to the editor, and corrigenda were excluded. STUDY
designSystematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were examined for number of authors, presence of female authorship, funding, country of origin, international collaboration, academic degree or certification of first and senior authors, and LOE. Clinical articles were assigned LOE based on guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
resultsA total of 654 articles were examined. The percentage of high-LOE studies increased throughout the study period. The percentage of publications with female authors also increased throughout the study period. The mean number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.6 over the 10-year period (
conclusionFemale authorship in
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.