Mohammad Reza Alibeik, Zeinab Bagheri, Niloofar Mohaghegh, Hamid Haghani,
Volume 9, Issue 2 (7-2015)
Abstract
Background and Aim: Materials and methods, as one of the most important
parts of a paper, introduces its scientific value. This study aims to investigate the
methodological quality of publications of Tehran University of Medical Sciences
(TUMS) indexed in PubMed.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive, cross-sectional study, 400
articles affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences and indexed in
PubMed until the end of 2012 were investigated. The type, purpose and subject
matter of all these articles were recorded in a checklist.
Results: The most frequently published reports were cross-sectional studies
(41.3%), followed by case-control studies (14.5%), case reports (14.3%), clinical
trials (13%), narrative reviews (4.8%), animal studies (3.3%), quantitative studies
(2.8%), quasi-experimental studies (2%), cohort studies (1.8%), case series (1%),
meta-analysis (1%), and systematic reviews (0.5%). When the articles were
classified according to National Library of Medicine (NLM) classification, most
papers were about musculoskeletal system (8.5%). Over half of the articles were
therapeutic (52.8%), followed by diagnostic (24.8%), prevention (12.3%),
prognostic (7.8%), and etiologic (2.5%). School of Medicine, Hazrate Rasoule
Akram hospital, and Endocrinology & Metabolism Research Institutes had the
highest number of articles among TUMS faculties, hospitals, and research centers.
Conclusion: Primary studies were the most common types observed in the
articles affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Systematic reviews
and meta-analyses form only a small proportion of articles in the current research.
It seems that there should be a revision in the researchers' priorities to publish
papers with prevention purposes
Mohsen Shirazi Mehrabad, Hadi Sharif Moghaddam , Khalil Kimiafar, Amirabbas Azizi,
Volume 11, Issue 4 (12-2017)
Abstract
Background and Aim: Periodic assessment of medical sciences databases is a necessary principle of the process of enhancement these databases. The aim of this study was to Comparatively evaluate structural features of medical bibliographic databases including MedLib, Barakat knowledge network system, Irandoc, SID, Magiran and PubMed, based on Gulliver criteria.
Materials and Methods: This survey was carried out in accordance with Gulliver's assessment checklist 2002. This checklist consists of 12 sections including entry page, searching, limiting, record viewing and manipulating, graphics, record retrieval, selective dissemination of information services, general design, terminology, icon design and placement, help and advanced features. The study was conducted on five national databases and one foreign database.
Results: Among the databases, PubMed gained the first ranking with a score of 89.16 percent. Among the national databases, new SID database with a score of 57.5 percent gained the top rank. Other databases including Irandoc (56.25%), Magiran (54.58 %), Barkat knowledge network system (52.91 %), MedLib (51.25%) and old SID (47.5 %) obtained next ranking respectively.
Conclusion: Despite improvements indices in updated national databases, many of the indicators are far from prestigious databases such as PubMed. It is recommended that in development of national databases, features such as search, help, SDI, entry page, advanced features and record retrieval should be considered.
