Objective: This study examined research productivity of NSAIDs in Malaysia.
Materials and Methods: This bibliometric study included all published research articles on NSAIDs from 1979 to 2018, which were conducted in Malaysia. The search databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were used. Search terms included NSAIDs and specific drug names such as ibuprofen, celecoxib, and naproxen. Growth of publication, authorship pattern, citation analysis, journal index, type of studies, and geographical distribution of institutions publishing articles on NSAIDs were measured.
Results: Overall, 111 articles were retrieved from 1979 to 2018. The annual productivity of articles throughout the study fluctuated in which the highest productivity was in 2018, 12.61% (n = 14). Majority of articles were multiple authored, 99.10% (n = 109), and University of Science Malaysia (USM) produced the highest number of articles (30 articles). Most of the articles were International Scientific Indexing-indexed, 52.25% (n = 58), and the main issue studied in most of the articles was the drug formulation of NSAIDs.
Conclusion: The growth of NSAID research in Malaysia was slow, and the majority of research involved laboratory studies. Clinical studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of NSAIDs in patients, particularly using large healthcare databases are still lacking.
METHODS: A 20-item questionnaire was distributed online to medical professors of a Saudi, Malaysian and a Pakistani medical school. The participants were instructed to select their responses on a 5-point Likert's scale and the collected data was analyzed for quantitative and qualitative results.
RESULTS: Of 161, 110 responded; response rate of 68.3%. About 35% professors spent 1-4 hours and 2% spent 19-25 hours per week for research. As many as 7% did not publish a single article and 29% had published 10 or more articles after attaining professor rank. During the last two years, 44% professors had published 5 or more research articles. Majority pointed out a lack of research support and funds, administrative burden and difficulty in data collection as the main obstacles to their research.
CONCLUSIONS: This research has identified time constraints and insufficient support for research as key barriers to medical professors' research productivity. Financial and technical support and lesser administrative work load are some suggested remedies to foster the professors' research output.
METHOD: 21 in-depth interviews were carried out.
RESULTS: Our analysis revealed variability in experiences with various types of unethical authorship practices among the interviewees. Second, we found that unethical authorship practices are not so unusual among academia although the exact numbers of incidents are unknown due to the fact that such practices are seldom reported. Third, our interviewees revealed that the culture of 'publish or perish' could be the main contributor to unethical practices of authorship because publication records are the main criteria for researcher's career evaluation besides, others, which are set by the university.
CONCLUSION: It was suggested that the institution must play a proactive role in educating and promoting awareness on authorship guidelines, through education and training, ethical leadership as well as promoting the importance of publication ethics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed without any restriction on the study design, publication year, or language using the Web of Science (WoS) group of Clarivate Analytics enabling the search through "All Databases." Based on the citation count as available in WoS, the articles were sorted in a descending manner. Information regarding each article was then extracted, which included its authorship, counts of citation (in other databases), citation density, current citation index (2019), publication year, country of publication, journal of article, evidence level based on study design, and keywords description.
RESULTS: The count of citation for each article varied in each database, that is, 175 to 2,003 in WoS, 89 to 1,981 in Scopus, and 126 to 3,492 when searched in Google Scholar. The highest number of articles (n = 10) related to dental caries were published in 2004. A total of 301 authors made valuable contributions to this field, out of which J.D. Featherstone had coauthored 6 articles. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the age of the article and the citation density (r =-0.545). However, a nonsignificant correlation (p = 0.952) occurred between the age of publication and the citation count (r = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review provide a critical appraisal of the context underpinning scientific developments in the field of dental caries and also highlighted trends in clinical management and research.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This cross-sectional study examined financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest among all 142 authors of CKD guidelines issued by the Japanese Society of Nephrology using a personal payment database from all 92 major Japanese pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019 and self-citations by guideline authors. Also, the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations underlying the guidelines and conflicts of interest policies of Japanese, US, and European nephrology societies were evaluated.
RESULTS: Among 142 authors, 125 authors (88%) received $6,742,889 in personal payments from 56 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Four-year combined median payment per author was $8258 (interquartile range, $2230‒$51,617). The amounts of payments and proportion of guideline authors with payments remained stable during and after guideline development. The chairperson, vice chairperson, and group leaders received higher personal payments than other guideline authors. Of 861 references in the guidelines, 69 (8%) references were self-cited by the guideline authors, and 76% of the recommendations were on the basis of low or very low quality of evidence. There were no fully rigorous and transparent conflicts of interest policies for nephrology guideline authors in the United States, Europe, and Japan.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the Japanese CKD guideline recommendations were on the basis of low quality of evidence by the guideline authors tied with pharmaceutical companies, suggesting the need for better financial conflicts of interest management.