León LG, Hurtado LLM

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 241-246
PDF size: 87.93 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess editorial productivity during one decade of Cirujano General.
Design: Retrospective, observational study.
Statistical analysis: Central tendency measures and Pearson’s Chi square for independent variables.
Setting: Academic Institution.
Material and methods: We reviewed the records and the database containing the information on the papers received in the 1991-2000 decade. We analyzed the following variables: Number of received papers, of published papers, percentage of rejection, category of each paper, type of used statistical analysis, federal state and country of origin.
Results: We received 712 papers, an average of 71 per year; 444 (62.3%) were published and 67 (9%) were rejected. To the category of original papers corresponded 245 (55.1%), to review 133 (29%), and to case reports 66 (14.8%). From those original or research papers, only 68(28%) had some type of statistical analysis. To compare the behavior of annual publication frequency according to category we used Chi square (χ²) and divided the decade in two five-year period: one from 1991 to 1995 and the other from 1996 to 2000. Based on this, the alternate hypothesis (Ha) was established for original papers, i.e., their publication increased in the second half as compared to the first, calculated χ² was of 2,36, below that of tables by 1 freedom-degree, yielding a p›0.005, confirming that their frequency did not increase. Regarding review articles, we obtained a p›0.05, confirming that their publication frequency did not decrease, and for the case reports, we obtained a statistically significant value of p› 0.05, confirming that there was no significant change in their publication for both five-year periods. Finally, analysis year by year, revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of original papers (p ‹ 0.05). Mexico City was the main provider of original papers with 167 (68%).
Conclusion: The production of original or research papers must be fostered in the federal states; their publication rate must be increased.

REFERENCES

1. Chávez J. ¿Por qué no escriben los médicos? Cir Gen 1995; 17: 189-90.

2. León LG. Cirujano General. Actividad editorial durante el quinquenio 1990 – 1994. Cir Gen 1995; 17: 24-29.

3. Campos CF. Los artículos de revisión. ¿Cuál es su utilidad? Cir Gen 1996; 18: 53-4.

4. Hurtado AH. ¿Es importante que los cirujanos publiquen artículos de casos clínicos? Cir Gen 1995; 17: 41-43.

5. León LG. Actividad editorial durante 1996. Informe del editor. Cir Gen 1997; 19: 87-90.

6. Ramírez Barba EJ. La investigación quirúrgica vista a través de los trabajos libres presentados en el XVII Congreso Nacional de Cirugía General en 1993. Cir Gen 1994; 16: 159-63.

7. Ramírez Barba EJ. Estadística por computadora para cirujanos: XX Congreso Nacional de Cirugía General. Programa Científico 1996, p 30.

8. Ramírez Barba EJ. Taller: Protocolo de la investigación quirúrgica. XIX Congreso Nacional de Cirugía General. Programa Científico 1995: p 33, 65, 96.

9. Ramírez Barba EJ. Metodología de la investigación XXIII Congreso Nacional de Cirugía General. Programa Científico 1999: p 29, 55, 81, 107.