A survey of the research practice in general medicine departments of Japanese universities: A cross‐sectional study

Tago, Masaki; Watari, Takashi; Shikino, Kiyoshi; Yamashita, Shun; Katsuki, Naoko E; M, Fujiwara

doi:10.1002/jgf2.473

Cited by 4 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 , 25 Moreover, such standards may not uniformly apply to different countries with varied health care systems. 22 , 23 , 25 , 26…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 28 Consequently, most articles by Japanese physicians indexed by PubMed are by attending physicians who are affiliated with university hospitals. 22 Some of these physicians are trained as general medicine physicians, whereas others are cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and pulmonologists. 5 , 22 , 31 , 32 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22 Some of these physicians are trained as general medicine physicians, whereas others are cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and pulmonologists. 5 , 22 , 31 , 32 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 19 , 21 Furthermore, the international impact of papers published by Japanese general medicine physicians, and trends in journal impact factor (IF), are unknown. 22 , 23 Consequently, establishing evaluation criteria for the academic achievements of Japanese generalists remains difficult. 15 , 17 , 22 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22 , 23 Consequently, establishing evaluation criteria for the academic achievements of Japanese generalists remains difficult. 15 , 17 , 22 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Watari¹,

Nakano²,

Gupta³

et al. 2022

IJGM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Japan created a specialty system for general medicine in 2018. However, Japanese academic generalists’ contribution to research remains unclear. This study examines the popularity of Japanese general medicine research, the characteristics of journal publications, annual trends, and the characteristics/differences among publications in journals with an impact factor (IF). Methods This bibliometric analysis extracted international, English-language, journal articles published on PubMed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Analysis included articles with either the first, second, or last author in general medicine. We classified articles according to publication or article type and field of research. We obtained standard descriptive statistics for each publication type. Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare nominal variables. For continuous variables, t -tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used, as appropriate. Results Of the 2372 articles analyzed, original articles were most common (56.3%), followed by case reports (30.1%), reviews (7.63%), and letters/others (5.9%). Publication volume increased 2.64-fold annually over 5 years. Clinical research (60.5%) was most common among original articles, followed by basic experimental research (17.5%) and public health/epidemiology (12.7%). Medical quality and safety (4.1%), medical and clinical education (3.1%), and health services (1.42%) received comparatively little attention. Eighty percent of articles were published in journals with IF; however, these journals rarely published case reports. Among original articles, the likelihood of publishing in journals with IF was high for basic laboratory medicine articles with higher IF (median IF 3.83, OR 1.71, 95% CI 2.20–5.95, p=0.044) and lower for clinical education research with the lowest IF (median IF 1.83, OR 0.56, 95% CI 01.8–0.75, p<0.001). Discussion General medicine physicians’ international research output is increasing in Japan; however, research achievements have not been generalized, but rather much influenced by clinical subspecialty backgrounds. This will likely continue unless an academic generalist discipline is established.

show abstract

“…13 , 25 Moreover, such standards may not uniformly apply to different countries with varied health care systems. 22 , 23 , 25 , 26…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22 Some of these physicians are trained as general medicine physicians, whereas others are cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and pulmonologists. 5 , 22 , 31 , 32 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22 , 23 Consequently, establishing evaluation criteria for the academic achievements of Japanese generalists remains difficult. 15 , 17 , 22 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Watari¹,

Nakano²,

Gupta³

et al. 2022

IJGM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Diversity of academic general medicine

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although research in general medicine is diverse, it has not been compared with research in a different medical specialty. The study aim was to understand the characteristics of research produced at Japanese university departments of general medicine and published in English-language journals, via comparison with another academic specialty, cardiology.In this cross-sectional study, a nationwide survey of the official websites of 82 university-affiliated medical schools in Japan was conducted in April 2020 to identify the heads of general medicine departments. We then surveyed the research output of these individuals in terms of original article output and research field diversity for journals listed in the Web of Science Core Collection of journals from 2010 to 2019. A similar survey of cardiology department publications was also conducted to provide a reference for intergroup comparisons and analysis of covariance.The analysis included 128 researchers from 78 general medicine departments and 96 researchers from 81 cardiology departments. The dominant research field of general medicine was general and internal medicine; that of cardiology was cardiac/ cardiovascular systems. Data stratification by research field showed that general medicine researchers published significantly more articles than researchers in cardiology, a field that contains relatively few researchers. Furthermore, a comparison of individual researchers with the same number of published articles showed that researchers in general medicine departments published across a significantly wider range of fields than those in cardiology.This is the first study to describe the research characteristics of general medicine university departments in Japan through comparison with research in a different academic specialty. General medicine researchers in Japan comprise a heterogeneous group that mainly publishes research on general and internal medicine. Some general medicine researchers take a multidisciplinary approach to research and publishing.

show abstract

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals’ and Community Healthcare Facilities’ Research Contributions on PubMed

Watari¹,

Gupta²

2023

IJGM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Although research in general medicine is important, the contributions and characteristics of general medicine physicians (GMPs) in university hospitals (UH) and community healthcare facilities (CHF) remains unclear. Therefore, this study examines the popularity of research by affiliation, characteristics of journal publication, annual trends, and differences in impact factors (IFs) of journal publications. Methods This study is a secondary bibliometric analysis of articles in international journals published in PubMed over the past six years (2015–2020). The analysis compared English articles published by either UH- or CHF-affiliated GMPs in Japan in terms of, among other things, article type, research field, and IF. Results Of the 2372 articles analyzed, 1688 (71.2%) were published by physicians affiliated with UHs, 62.6% of which were original. Basic research, international collaboration, and ratio of IFs were significantly higher for such papers. In contrast, the number of CHF articles were significantly higher in the areas of clinical research and practice, with a greater proportion of case reports. There was no significant difference in IF between the disciplines within each affiliation, but the IF was the highest in experimental basic research and the lowest in medical and clinical education. In the six-year time series, the number of original papers by UHs and CHFs increased roughly twofold between 2015 and 2020, but the number of articles in the areas of medical education and healthcare quality and safety remained mostly unchanged. Conclusion The number of international papers published by Japanese GMPs has increased since 2015, particularly in terms of original papers and clinical research from UHs. However, there was no significant difference in the IF between UH and CHF publications. Our findings can guide the development of indicators, research, and education strategies regarding Japanese GMPs’ research performance.

show abstract

A survey of the research practice in general medicine departments of Japanese universities: A cross‐sectional study

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Diversity of academic general medicine

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals’ and Community Healthcare Facilities’ Research Contributions on PubMed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About