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
garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU
Wed Oct 27 14:54:23 EDT 2010
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
Author Full Name(s): Jelercic, Stasa; Lingard, Heide; Spiegel, Wolfgang;
Pichlhoefer, Otto; Maier, Manfred
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
More information about the SIGMETRICS