Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “PUBLISHING”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

[Analysis of authors of articles published in Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology from 1995 to 2004].

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze the authors, the organizations and regional distribution of these authors of Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology, and ascertain the core authors, core organizations and core regions. METHODS: Using quantitative analysis method, we analysed the authors, co-authors and the core authors of papers published between 1995 to 2004. Also, the distributions of districts and highly quantitative organization were determined statistically. RESULTS: There were 2143 articles published during the last ten years; 912 author had published only one paper, accounted for 70.59% of total first authors. There were 1853 articles with one or more co-authors, the cooperative rate and degree were 86.47% and 3.56, respectively. There were 290 papers with single author, which accounted for 13.53% of total papers. The number of papers from universities, institutes, affiliated hospitals and hospitals were 246 (11.48%), 176 (8.21%), 969 (45.22%) and 423 (19.74%), respectively. There were 82 core authors published 553 (25.81%) papers, while 20 highly-quantities organizations published 1016 (47.41%) papers. Core region was Beijing, which published 574 (26.78%) articles. CONCLUSIONS: Authors of the Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology have a wide distribution and highly cooperative rate. There are a group of active and talented core authors, who have a great influence on this journal.

Authorship↗
PubMed1987

Institution-specific versus published in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility data in making formulary decisions.

The results of susceptibility testing of 549 isolates of gram-negative organisms to 17 antimicrobial agents were compared with published reports of the sensitivity of those organisms to those agents. All gram-negative bacilli isolated from cultures obtained from hospitalized patients during a three-month period were preserved for antimicrobial sensitivity testing. Standard Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion susceptibility tests were performed using 17 broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents that either were included in the hospital formulary or were being considered for inclusion. Organisms were recorded as being sensitive or resistant to each drug, and the results were compared with the published results of in vitro sensitivity studies. When the results of actual antimicrobial sensitivity testing varied from published results, the discordant results were assigned a ranking of 1 to 4 based on the percentage difference. In 34 of 77 drug-organism pairs tested, the results of susceptibility testing differed by more than 10% cumulative susceptibility from published values; 26 of these represented instances in which the results of actual testing were at least 10% less than published values. For seven of the antimicrobial agents that were being considered for inclusion in the hospital formulary, results indicating unexpectedly suboptimal activity against institutional pathogens were a determinant in eliminating the agents from further consideration. In vitro testing of antimicrobial susceptibility of local pathogens can be a better method of predicting the susceptibility of such pathogens to new antimicrobial agents than relying on published susceptibility data. Pharmacy and therapeutics committees should consider testing prevalent institutional pathogens for susceptibility to all antimicrobial agents that are proposed additions to the formulary.

Aminoglycosides↗
PubMed1993

Who pays for published research?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of unfunded research published in major medical journals. DESIGN: Review of original research completed in the United States and published in 23 official journals of internal medicine and neurology during 1 month in 1991. Investigators were contacted to confirm lack of funding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of unfunded, published original research. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-six articles were evaluated. There was at least one unfunded study in 78% of journals. Forty-five published studies (23%) were unfunded. Among those 45 studies, 7% were clinical trials, 9% were cohort studies, 18% were cross-sectional or case-control studies, 53% were case series, and 13% were surveys. Thirteen unfunded studies involved procedures that presumably were performed for research purposes and not as part of routine patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one quarter of original research published in major medical journals was unfunded. Seven percent of published research involved direct clinical costs that were not accounted for by the investigators. These costs may have been passed on to study participants or third-party payers.

Periodicals as Topic↗
PubMed1998

Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish.

CONTEXT: It is not known whether peer review of research abstracts submitted to scientific meetings influences subsequent attempts at publication. OBJECTIVE: To determine why research submitted to a scientific meeting is not subsequently published. We hypothesized that authors of abstracts rejected by a meeting are less likely to pursue publication than those whose abstracts are accepted, regardless of research quality. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Blinded review of abstracts submitted to a medical specialty meeting in 1991 and not published as full manuscripts within 5 years. In 1996, authors of 266 unpublished studies were asked to complete questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Submission of a full manuscript to a journal between 1991 and 1996; failure to submit a manuscript to a journal because the investigator believed it would not be accepted for publication. RESULTS: A total of 223 (84%) of the unpublished investigators returned the questionnaire. Only 44 (20%) had submitted manuscripts to a journal. Manuscript submission was not associated with abstract quality (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.64), positive results (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.31-1.57), or other study characteristics. Having an abstract accepted for presentation at the meeting weakly predicted submission of a manuscript to a journal (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.84-4.10). Authors of accepted abstracts were significantly less likely to believe a journal would not publish their manuscript than were authors of rejected abstracts (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.0001-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Study characteristics do not predict attempts to publish research submitted to a scientific meeting. Investigators whose research is rejected by a meeting are pessimistic about chances for publication and may make less effort to publish.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed1998

Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.

CONTEXT: Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers. Ideally, reviews should include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them. OBJECTIVE: To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted to 1995. STUDY SELECTION: All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995. DATA EXTRACTION: Number of authors, trials, and patients; trial sources; inclusion and exclusion criteria; language restrictions; primary outcome; trial quality assessment; heterogeneity testing; and effect estimates. Updating by 1997 was evaluated. RESULTS: Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2; P<.001), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5; P<.001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528; P<.001) than Cochrane reviews. More Cochrane reviews, however, included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39; P<.001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39; P<.001). No Cochrane reviews had language restrictions (0/36 vs 7/39; P<.01). There were no differences in sources of trials, heterogeneity testing, or description of effect estimates. By June 1997, 18 of 36 Cochrane reviews had been updated vs 1 of 39 reviews listed in MEDLINE. CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals.

Meta-Analysis as Topic↗
PubMed2002

Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals.

CONTEXT: Reliable interpretation of the results of a controlled trial entails setting its results in the context of similar research. A previous study showed that most reports of controlled trials published in 5 general medical journals in May 1997 were deficient in this respect. We assessed the extent to which reports of controlled trials published in the same 5 journals discussed new results in light of the totality of evidence from other controlled trials. METHODS: Assessment of the discussion sections in all 33 reports of randomized trials published during May 2001 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. RESULTS: Three reports appeared to have been the first published trials to address the questions studied. In none of the remaining 30 reports were the results of the new trial discussed in the context of an updated systematic review of other trials. Although reference was made to relevant systematic reviews in 3 of these 30 reports, there was no integration, quantitative or qualitative, of the results of the new trials in an update of these reviews. In the remaining 27 reports, there was no evidence that any systematic attempt had been made to set the new results in the context of previous trials. CONCLUSIONS: Between 1997 and 2001, there was no evidence of progress in the proportion of reports of trials published in general medical journals that discussed the new results within the context of, or with reference to, up-to-date systematic reviews of relevant evidence from other controlled trials.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed1997

Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German.

BACKGROUND: Some randomised controlled trials (RCTs) done in German-speaking Europe are published in international English-language journals and others in national German-language journals. We assessed whether authors are more likely to report trials with statistically significant results in English than in German. METHODS: We studied pairs of RCT reports, matched for first author and time of publication, with one report published in German and the other in English. Pairs were identified from reports round in a manual search of five leading German-language journals and from reports published by the same authors in English found on Medline. Quality of methods and reporting were assessed with two different scales by two investigators who were unaware of authors' identities, affiliations, and other characteristics of trial reports. Main study endpoints were selected by two investigators who were unaware of trial results. Our main outcome was the number of pairs of studies in which the levels of significance (shown by p values) were discordant. FINDINGS: 62 eligible pairs of reports were identified but 19 (31%) were excluded because they were duplicate publications. A further three pairs (5%) were excluded because no p values were given. The remaining 40 pairs were analysed. Design characteristics and quality features were similar for reports in both languages. Only 35% of German-language articles, compared with 62% of English-language articles, reported significant (p < 0.05) differences in the main endpoint between study and control groups (p = 0.002 by McNemar's test). Logistic regression showed that the only characteristic that predicted publication in an English-language journal was a significant result. The odds ratio for publication of trials with significant results in English was 3.75 (95% CI 1.25-11.3). INTERPRETATION: Authors were more likely to publish RCTs in an English-language journal if the results were statistically significant. English language bias may, therefore, be introduced in reviews and meta-analyses if they include only trials reported in English. The effort of the Cochrane Collaboration to identify as many controlled trials as possible, through the manual search of many medical journals published in different languages will help to reduce such bias.

Bias↗
PubMed1993

Research on "feeding behavior": quantitative information vs. qualitative perceptions about where it is published.

To gain some understanding of where research on "feeding behavior" is published, a Medline search was conducted for the years 1980-1990 inclusive using the above key phrase to capture published articles coded in this way. Furthermore, an eight-item questionnaire was mailed to all 451 persons listed in the 1990 membership directory of the Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior (SSIB) soliciting views on the top five journals publishing the greatest number, as well as the most "prestigious," articles in this field, along with demographic information about the respondents. After deleting journals that published agriculturally based research relating to insects or parasites, the Medline search generated 1,813 articles in the top 25 journals, the top 5 of which were Physiology and Behavior (462 articles), Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior (211 articles), Brain Research (118 articles), American Journal of Physiology (106 articles) and Brain Research Bulletin (87 articles). This fact accorded well with weighted scores generated from perceptions of SSIB respondents (24.4% return rate), whose top 25 rankings correlated highly (r14 = +0.829, p < .001) with the Medline data. Although the top 5 number 1 choices of "prestige" journals by SSIB members did not match up well with the Medline list, weighted "prestige" scores correlated reasonably well with the Medline data (r15 = +0.766, p < .001), but a bit less so with SSIB perceptions of where greatest numbers of articles appeared (r12 = +0.588, p < .05). Discussion is presented about the validity of these data, their implications, and their potential utility in helping researchers decide where to publish work in this field.

Animals↗
PubMed2000

Do presenters to paediatric meetings get their work published?

BACKGROUND: Research presented to a scientific meeting is inaccessible to clinicians, unless it is also published in a cited journal. AIMS: To assess the publication rate of studies presented to two UK national paediatric meetings: the Paediatric Research Society (PRS) and the British Paediatric Association (BPA). METHODS: A Medline search in December 1999 for the first authors of all plenary abstracts presented in 1996. If not found, authors contacted by postal questionnaire. RESULTS: Information was obtained on 88/89 presentations. Twenty five of 48 PRS and 31 of 40 BPA studies were published in Medline listed journals. The major reason for non-publication was that they had not been submitted (PRS 15/48, BPA 6/40). Some authors were still hoping to do so (PRS 7, BPA 2). Other reasons were: publication in other forms (theses, book chapters, non-Medline journals) (PRS 5, BPA 2), or still being reviewed (PRS 3, BPA 1). Ten of 11 randomised, controlled trials were published, but only 20 of 37 observational studies were submitted and published. CONCLUSION: Presenters to paediatric meetings need help in submitting and publishing their work.

Child↗
PubMed1993

[A study on medical periodicals published in Turkish in Arabic alphabet-II].

In this article medical periodicals published in Turkish in Arabic alphabet between the year 1849, when the first medical periodical was published, and 1928, when the Latin alphabet was accepted, are introduced. First a general history of medical periodicals is given, then each periodical is introduced with its physical characteristics and contents, such as the publisher, editor, publisher's address, office frequency and duration of the publications, press, measurements, whether it's illustrated or not, number of pages and columns and writer's names are given. Utilizing these data, each periodical is criticized. This study is published in two parts and in the end an alphabetical and chronological list of the periodicals and a list classifying the periodicals, according to their subjects, is given. A general survey of the research is made and conclusions based on the data.

History, 19th Century↗
PubMed1992

[The authors and the bibliographic references of the original articles published in the journal Atención Primaria (1984-1990)].

OBJECTIVE: The main aim of the study is to assess the developing situation of the articles published in the journal Atención Primaria in relation to the original articles included in the same journal. There are secondary aims of describing the amount of self-quotation, the profession of the authors, their geographical distribution and their use of bibliographic references. DESIGN: A descriptive analysis of the authors and bibliographic references in the original articles. SITE. Publications and research in Primary Care. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: All the original articles published in the journal Atención Primaria during its first seven years (1984-1990). Gathering of data from the original articles (the number of authors, province of their place of work, titles, total number of references, references from Atención Primaria, the number of self-quotations, etc.) In the seven years studied, 295 original articles have been published by 1467 authors, 44% of whom are family doctors. The average number of authors per article was 5. There are twelve Spanish provinces from which no-one has published. Altogether 4,908 bibliographic references, an average of 16.6 per article, have been used. The number of references from the journal itself rose steadily from 1% in 1984 to 11.7% in 1988, but went down to 10.3% in 1990. 52% of the bibliographic references were in Castilian and 42.6% in English. CONCLUSION: The journal Atención Primaria is often quoted in original articles published in the same journal. The number of authors and references per original article is high but stable.

Authorship↗
PubMed2005

[Trends of electronic publishing in medicine and life sciences].

Scientific publication in the electronic media is gaining popularity in academic libraries, research institutions and commercial organizations. The electronic journal may shorten the processes of writing and publication, decrease publication and distribution costs, and enable access from any location in the world. Electronic publications have unique advantages: it is possible to search them, to create hyperlinks to references and footnotes, as well as to information on the web and to include graphics and photographs at a very low cost. Audio, video and tri-dimensional images may also be included. Electronic publishing may also speed up review and publication processes and enable the writer to receive immediate feedback through the web. However, in spite of the advantages, there are certain points that must be considered: accessibility to previously published material is not guaranteed as databases are not always stable and coverage may change without notice. In addition, the price that commercial publishers charge for their services may be very high or be subject to the purchase of a packaged deal that may include unwanted databases. Many issues of copyright and the use of published material are not yet finalized. In this review we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the electronic scientific publication, the feasibility of keeping appropriate quality and peer-review process, the stability and accessibility of databases managed by the publishers and the acceptance of the electronic format by scientists and clinicians.

Biological Science Disciplines↗
PubMed1998

[Books on anesthesiology and resuscitation published in Spain. An approach to their study].

INTRODUCTION: Few authors have examined the publication of medical books. Our aim was to analyze the nature of books published in Spain on anesthesiology and recovery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Books listed by the Spanish ISBN agency were selected if they included anestesi* or reanima* in any field. Duplicates were removed. Multiple editions or references were considered single books, with data for the oldest edition entered into analysis. Multiple volume collections were grouped as complete works. Data analyzed for each book were year of publication, language (of publication and the original), subject (according to ISBN classification) and place of publication. Nine subject classifications were applied: general, recovery, anesthetic techniques, pharmacology, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, veterinary anesthesia, dental anesthesia and miscellaneous. RESULTS: We analyzed 216 books. Years that saw publication of the greatest number of books were 1988 (17), 1993 (16) and 1979 (15), and the five-year period in which the most books were published was 1985 to 1989 (48 books, 22.2%). Most books (114, 52.8%) were originally written in English, Spanish being the second most common original language (58, 26.8%). All books were published in Spanish. The Spanish ISBN classification system identified 11 categories: general diseases/clinical medicine/therapy (161, 74.5%); drugs/pharmacology/physical therapy/toxicology (20, 9.3%); gynecology/obstetrics (9, 4.2%), veterinary medicine (9, 4.2%) and medicine (8, 3.7%). Classification by specific subjects showed a predominance of monographs or treatises on general aspects (42, 19.4%) followed by books on recovery (37, 17.1%), anesthetic techniques (25, 11.6%) and pharmacology (17, 7.9%). Most books were published in Barcelona (142, 65.7%), Madrid (36, 16.7%) or Saragossa (10, 4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Spanish publication of books on anesthesiology and recovery has increased in recent years. Most books are translations usually from English. Spanish ISBN agency data, although it has limitations, can be useful for locating books published in Spain on anesthesiology and recovery. It would be useful to introduce keywords into the ISBN data base so that books on specific subjects could be classified and retrieved.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed1998

[Biomedical papers written by Chilean authors published in international journals in 1997. A review of MEDLINE].

BACKGROUND: Many Chilean biomedical investigators publish the results of their research in international journals, not easily accessible to fellow physicians of the country. AIM: To assess the amount and quality of papers published by Chilean authors in international journals. DATA SOURCE AND METHODS: Using MEDLINE databases from January to August, 1997, all papers in which Chile appeared in the field "AD" (Address of author) were selected. Papers with a clear relationship to human medicine were identified. RESULTS: During the study period, 390 papers with authors residing in Chile appeared in MEDLINE. Of these, 188 (48%) were published in Chile and the rest was published abroad. Thirty manuscripts had a greater relationship to clinical medicine and the authors of nine of them were invited to submit a translation of their abstract into Spanish to have them reproduced in the present article. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of biomedical research papers originated in Chile is published abroad with the consequent lack of diffusion among non-specialized readers from their own country.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2005

Costs and funding for published medical education research.

CONTEXT: The Institute of Medicine has called for increased rigor of education research and funding to support educational innovation. However, funding for medical education research is scarce. The costs of conducting studies in medical education and how such research is currently funded have not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To determine how medical education research studies that were recently published were funded and to approximate the costs of conducting these studies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of first authors of medical education studies published from September 1, 2002, to December 31, 2003. Original medical education research studies conducted at US institutions and published in 13 prominent peer-reviewed journals were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each study we measured duration, percentage of the authors' total work commitment ("percentage effort") devoted to the study, resources used and their costs, attainment of funding, and the first author's estimated cost of conducting the study. The cost of each study was calculated by multiplying the percentage effort of each author for the duration of the study by the national median salary for each author, according to specialty and academic rank, and then adding the costs of resources used. RESULTS: Responses were received from authors of 243 (84%) of 290 identified medical education studies. The median calculated cost of conducting the 243 studies was 24,471 dollars (interquartile range [IQR], 11,531 dollars-63 808 dollars). The median authors' estimate of study cost was 10,000 dollars (IQR, 4000 dollars-25 000 dollars). Some funding was obtained for 72 (29.6%) of the studies. Of studies that were funded, the median amount of funding was 15,000 dollars (IQR, 5000 dollars-66,500 dollars). The median calculated cost of funded studies was 37,315 dollars (IQR, 18,731 dollars-82,393 dollars). Private foundation grants were the most common funding source (n = 30 [41.7%]). Factors independently associated with attaining funding were training in grant writing (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.79) and number of medical education studies published by the first author (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.63). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published medical education research is not formally funded, and the studies that do receive support are substantially underfunded. To realize the Institute of Medicine's directive and to improve the quality of medical research, policy reform that increases funding for medical education scholarship will likely be required.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed2004

Reassessment of the Proteus syndrome literature: application of diagnostic criteria to published cases.

The medical care of patients affected by rare disorders depends heavily on experiences garnered from prior cases, including those patients evaluated by the treating physician and those published in the medical literature. The utility of published cases is wholly dependent upon accurate diagnosis of those patients. In our experience, the rate of misdiagnosis in Proteus syndrome (PS) is high. Diagnostic criteria have been published, but these criteria have not been applied consistently and were published after many case reports appeared in the literature. We reviewed 205 cases of individuals reported to have PS in the literature and three of us independently applied the diagnostic criteria to these case reports. Our initial diagnostic congruence was 97.1% (199/205); the discrepancies in six cases were easily resolved. Only 97 (47.3%) of reported cases met the diagnostic criteria for PS; 80 cases (39%) clearly did not meet the criteria; and although 28 cases (13.7%) had features suggestive of PS, there were insufficient clinical data to make a diagnosis. Reported cases that met the PS criteria had a higher incidence of premature death, and other complications (scoliosis, megaspondyly, central nervous system abnormalities, tumors, otolaryngologic complications, pulmonary cystic malformations, dental and ophthalmogic complications) compared to those in the non-Proteus group. The cases that met the criteria were more often male, which has implications for hypotheses regarding the etiology and pathophysiology of PS. We also studied the attributes that led authors to conclude the reported patients had PS when we concluded they did not. We found that two of the diagnostic criteria (disproportionate overgrowth and connective tissue nevi) were often misinterpreted. In PS, the abnormal growth is asymmetric, distorting, relentless, and occurred at a faster rate compared to the rest of the body. Furthermore, PS was associated with irregular and disorganized bone, including hyperostoses, hyperproliferation of osteoid with variable calcification, calcified connective tissue, and elongation of long bones with abnormal thinning. In contrast, non-Proteus cases displayed overgrowth that was asymmetric but grew at a rate similar to the growth found in unaffected areas of the body. Also, the overgrowth in non-Proteus cases was associated with normal or enlarged bones together with ballooning of the overlying soft tissues. Taken together, these data show that (1) PS diagnostic criteria sort individuals with asymmetric overgrowth into distinct groups; (2) individuals with PS were more likely to have serious complications; (3) PS affects more males than females; and 4) the published diagnostic criteria are useful for clinical care and research. This article contains supplementary material, which may be viewed at the American Journal of Medical Genetics website at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0148-7299/suppmat/index.html.

Diagnosis, Differential↗
PubMed1994

Bone marrow micronucleus assay: a review of the mouse stocks used and their published mean spontaneous micronucleus frequencies.

We have examined published negative control data from 581 papers on micronucleated bone marrow polychromatic erythrocytes (mnPCE) for differences in mean frequency and the frequency distribution profile among the mouse stocks used with the bone marrow micronucleus assay. For the 55 mouse stocks with published micronucleus assay data, the overall mean frequency is 1.95 mnPCE/1,000 PCE (1.95 mnPCE/1,000); for the 13 stocks most commonly used in the assay, it is 1.88 mnPCE/1,000. During the last 5 years, the mnPCE rate for these 13 major stocks has been 1.74 mnPCE/1,000. This current mean frequency is a substantial decrease from the mean of 3.07 mnPCE/1,000 observed for these 13 stocks for data published prior to 1981. Of the major stocks, the highest mean mnPCE negative control frequencies were observed for MS/Ae > BALB/c > C57Bl/6, and the lowest for CD-1 < Swiss Webster. We note that hybrid mouse stocks appear to have lower and less variable negative control frequencies than either of their parent strains and that the negative control frequency for some progeny stocks have diverged significantly from that of the parent stocks. Overall mean negative control frequencies appear to be correlated with breadth of the frequency distribution profile of published mean negative control values. Furthermore, a possible correlation between negative control frequency in the micronucleus assay and sensitivity to clastogens of different mouse strains may be indicated. The databases generated here allow us to define a range of norms for both the historical mean frequency and individual experimental mean frequencies for most stocks, but in particular, for the more commonly used mouse stocks. Our analysis, for the most part, bears out the recommendation of the first Gene-Tox Report on the micronucleus assay that the historical negative control frequency for a mouse stock should fall between 1 and 3 mnPCE/1,000. Eighty-six percent of the most commonly used mouse stocks have historical mean frequencies within this range. Though individual experimental mean values would not necessarily be expected to fall within the 1-3.00 mnPCE/1,000 range, 65.3% of the 2,327 published negative control values do, and 83.5% are < 3 mnPCE/1,000. The frequency with which an individual experimental mean value lies outside the 1.00 to 3.00 mnPCE/1,000 range differs among stocks and appears related to the mouse mean frequency. We suggest that the recommended range for historical mean frequency be extended slightly, to approximately 3.4 mnPCE/1,000, to accommodate some commonly used strains with overall mean negative control frequencies just above 3.00 mnPCE/1,000.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Animals↗
PubMed1994

Who is publishing in Theriogenology and on what subjects?

An analysis of 503 articles published in the journal Theriogenology in 1984, 1987 and 1990 was conducted to identify research trends and researchers publishing in the journal. A 30.5% increase in the number of papers published was found for 1990. During the 3 yr period studied, the United States and Canada accounted for 63.1% of the total number of articles published, followed by European countries with 14.3%, and by Asia with 12.0%. At least 1 paper was published from 41 countries. The United States, at the top of the list, increased its share from 16% in 1984 to 21% in 1990. The number of papers from Japan increased significantly while the percentage of participation from Europe declined. The female animal was the sole subject of 63.2% of the articles, and cattle were the most researched species, appearing in 44.3% of the studies. Although the estrous cycle was the most studied reproductive event in all 3 yr, there was also a trend for the popularity of this topic to decrease in favor of the subject fertilization. The number of authors per paper increased significantly over the years analyzed, as did the number of studies carried out in international cooperation. Institutes of higher education were represented in almost 70% of the papers, followed by research institutes (12.8%). The present analysis confirms the central role that the journal Theriogenology plays in the world-wide communication of research results in animal reproduction.

Journal Article↗