Jelercic, S, et al. 2010. Assessment of publication output in the field of general practice and family medicine and by general practitioners and general practice institutions. FAMILY PRACTICE 27 (5): 582-589

[Eugene Garfield]

Jelercic, S; Lingard, H; Spiegel, W; Pichlhofer, O; Maier, M. 2010. Assessment 
of publication output in the field of general practice and family medicine and by 
general practitioners and general practice institutions. FAMILY PRACTICE 27 
(5): 582-589.

Author Full Name(s): Jelercic, Stasa; Lingard, Heide; Spiegel, Wolfgang; 
Pichlhoefer, Otto; Maier, Manfred
Language: English
Document Type: Article

Author Keywords: Family medicine; general practice; medical databases; 
publication output; search terms
KeyWords Plus: SEARCH STRATEGIES; SUBJECT-HEADINGS; IMPACT FACTOR; 
PRIMARY-CARE; QUALITY; MEDLINE; AUSTRALIA; EMBASE; HEALTH; UK

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.

Addresses: [Jelercic, Stasa] Univ Med Ctr, Ljubljana, Slovenia; [Lingard, Heide; 
Spiegel, Wolfgang; Pichlhoefer, Otto; Maier, Manfred] Med Univ Vienna, Dept 
Family Med, A-1090 Vienna, Austria

Reprint Address: Maier, M, Med Univ Vienna, Dept Gen Practice, Ctr Publ Hlth, 
Wahringerstr 13A, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.

E-mail Address: manfred.maier at meduniwien.ac.at
ISSN: 0263-2136
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmq032
fulltext: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/5/582.full