PubMed · 9757301
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P Rouleau. 1998. [Impact factor: what for?].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9757301/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, launched in 1984, provides high-quality population health data that underpins a vast body of global health research. However, the scale and growth patterns of DHS-based publications remain underexplored, particularly as donor funding uncertainties threaten program sustainability. OBJECTIVE: We examine temporal trends in DHS-based research output from 1984 to 2025, quantifying growth patterns and publication delays to inform understanding of the program's global research expansion. METHODS: A systematic bibliometric review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Wiley, and CINAHL. Eligible peer-reviewed articles using DHS data between 1984 and 2025 were identified. Annual publication counts were analyzed, segmented regression identified growth inflection points, and timeliness was assessed by calculating lag between survey completion and publication. RESULTS: Over 10,000 DHS-based publications were identified. Annual output rose from isolated studies in the 1980s to several hundred annually by the 2010s. Segmentation analysis revealed two rapid growth phases: a 56-publications/year increase from 2004-2012, and a 71-publications/year increase from 2012 to 2024. Despite this growth, median lag from survey completion to publication remained approximately 5 years, with only a modest recent improvement (Kendall's τ =  -0.623, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: DHS data have fueled exponential growth in global health research over four decades, confirming their vital role in evidence generation. However, persistent publication delays highlight the need to shorten the pathway from data collection to dissemination through strengthened research capacity in low- and middle-income countries. Sustained funding is essential to maintain this critical evidence source.
BACKGROUND: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of widely used anthropogenic chemicals. Concerns regarding their persistence and potential adverse effects have led to multiple secondary research publications. Here, we aim to assess the resulting evidence base in the systematic secondary literature by examining research gaps, evaluating the quality of reviews, and exploring interdisciplinary connections. METHODS: This study employed a systematic evidence-mapping approach to assess the secondary literature on the biological, environmental, and medical aspects of exposure to 35 fluorinated compounds. The inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, pre-prints, and theses. Comprehensive searches across electronic databases and grey literature identified relevant reviews. Data extraction and synthesis involved mapping literature content and narrative descriptions. We employed a modified version of the AMSTAR2 checklist to evaluate the methodological rigour of the reviews. A bibliometric data analysis uncovered patterns and trends in the academic literature. A research protocol for this study was previously pre-registered (osf.io/2tpn8) and published (Vendl et al., Environment International 158 (2022) 106973). The database is freely accessible through the interactive and user-friendly web application of this systematic evidence map at https://hi-this-is-lorenzo.shinyapps.io/PFAS_SEM_Shiny_App/. RESULTS: Our map includes a total of 175 systematic reviews. Over the years, there has been a steady increase in the annual number of publications, with a notable surge in 2021. Most reviews focused on human exposure, whereas environmental and animal-related reviews were fewer and often lacked a rigorous systematic approach to literature search and screening. Review outcomes were predominantly associated with human health, particularly with reproductive and children's developmental health. Animal reviews primarily focused on studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings, and wildlife reviews were characterised by an over-representation of birds and fish species. Recent reviews increasingly incorporated quantitative synthesis methodologies. The methodological strengths of the reviews included detailed descriptions of study selection processes and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. However, weaknesses were observed in the critical lack of detail in reporting methods. A bibliometric analysis revealed that the most productive authors collaborate within their own country, leading to limited and clustered international collaborations. CONCLUSIONS: In this overview of the available systematic secondary literature, we map literature content, assess reviews' methodological quality, highlight data gaps, and draw research network clusters. We aim to facilitate literature reviews, guide future research initiatives, and enhance opportunities for cross-country collaboration. Furthermore, we discuss how this systematic evidence map and its publicly available database benefit scientists, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders by providing access to current systematic secondary literature on PFAS exposure.
OBJECTIVES: To appraise findings from studies examining the impact of computers on primary care consultations. DESIGN: Systematic review of world literature from 1980 to 1997. DATA SOURCES: 5475 references were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Index of Scientific and Technical Proceedings, Embase, OCLC FirstSearch Proceedings), bibliographies, books, identified articles, and by authors active in the field. 1892 eligible abstracts were independently rated, and 89 studies met the inclusion criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effect on doctors' performance and patient outcomes; attitudes towards computerisation. RESULTS: 61 studies examined effects of computers on practitioners' performance, 17 evaluated their impact on patient outcome, and 20 studied practitioners' or patients' attitudes. Computer use during consultations lengthened the consultation. Reminder systems for preventive tasks and disease management improved process rates, although some returned to pre-intervention levels when reminders were stopped. Use of computers for issuing prescriptions increased prescribing of generic drugs, and use of computers for test ordering led to cost savings and fewer unnecessary tests. There were no negative effects on those patient outcomes evaluated. Doctors and patients were generally positive about use of computers, but issues of concern included their impact on privacy, the doctor-patient relationship, cost, time, and training needs. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care computing systems can improve practitioner performance, particularly for health promotion interventions. This may be at the expense of patient initiated activities, making many practitioners suspicious of the negative impact on relationships with patients. There remains a dearth of evidence evaluating effects on patient outcomes.