Journals / Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology / 2020 / Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 2

The Bibliometric Analysis of the Studies Presented at the Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the Period 2009-2018

Pages
99–105
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The findings indicated that the abstracts were satisfactory in quantity, but overall scientific quality was not sufficient.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the abstracts presented at Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the years from 2009 to 2018.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Frequency and percentage tables were prepared.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The findings indicated that the abstracts were satisfactory in quantity, but overall scientific quality was not sufficient.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The aim of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the abstracts presented at Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the years from 2009 to 2018. Methods: Abstracts were defined and grouped according to their field of study, design, level of evidence, number of authors, the main institution in which they were held, and whether they were uni- or multi-centric. Frequency and percentage tables were prepared. Results: In total, 5,463 studies, of which 1,431 (26.2%) were oral presentations and 4,032 (73.8%) were poster presentations were reviewed. The highest number of studies was in the field of otology and in the form of oral presentations (32%), and in the field of head and neck surgery in the form of poster presentations (37%). Fifty-seven percent of all studies were conducted in university hospitals, and 34% in Training and Research Hospitals. Eighty-three percent of oral presentations and 99% of poster presentations were clinical studies. The rate of experimental animal studies was 16% in oral presentations. The most commonly used design of orally presented clinical studies was descriptive (31%), whereas prospective randomized controlled design was the least common (3%). No study with a level 1 of evidence was found. The rate of oral papers presented with evidence levels 2, 3, 4, and 5 among all oral presentations were 22%, 13%, 11%, and 54%, respectively. Conclusion: The findings indicated that the abstracts were satisfactory in quantity, but overall scientific quality was not sufficient. The data obtained may serve as a basis for future studies, and follow-up studies may guide individuals and institutions that steer the Turkish ENT community.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞAHİN, M. İ., GÜLMEZ, E., ÇETİNASLAN, V., VURAL, A., ÜNLÜ, Y., TARAF, N. H., YİĞİT, Ö. (2020). The Bibliometric Analysis of the Studies Presented at the Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the Period 2009-2018. Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 2, 99–105. https://ajindex.com/articles/403375

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. CABİM TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM. Bibliyometrik Analiz 2019. [Bibliometric analysis 2019]. Available from:
  2. Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact? Scientometrics 2015; 105: 1809-31. [Crossref] 3. Lu C, Bing Z, Bi Z, Liu M, Lu T, Xun Y, et al. Top-100 most cited publications concerning network pharmacology: a bibliometric analysis. Evid Based Compl Alt 2019:1704816. [Crossref] 4. Zou Y, Luo Y, Zhang J, Xia N, Tan G, Huang C. Bibliometric analysis of oncolytic virus research, 2000 to 2018. Medicine 2019; 98: e16817. [Crossref] 5. Gurbuz Y, Sugun TS, Ozaksar K. A bibliometric analysis of orthopedic publications originating from Turkey. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2015; 49: 57-66. [Crossref] 6. Akyıldız İ, Kızıl Y. Evaluation of articles on rhinology published in national otorhinolaryngology journals between 2010-2015. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 53:150-4. [Crossref] 7. Meral UM, Urkan M, Alakuş Ü, Lapsekili E, İflazoğlu N, Ünlü A, et al. Publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual congress of the Turkish Society of Colorectal Surgery (years 2003-2011). Turk J Surg 2017; 33: 87-90. [Crossref] 8. Günay S, Sariaydin M, Sarinc-Ulasli S, Günay E, Demir S, Unlu M. The publication rates of abstracts presented at the Turkish Respiratory Society (TUSAD) annual congress: adequate or not? Clin Respir J 2018; 12: 158-64. [Crossref] 9. Mimouni M, Krauthammer M, Abualhasan H, Badarni H, Imtanis K, Allon G, et al. Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting. J Med Libr Assoc 2018; 106: 57-64. [Crossref] 10. Janssen T, Bartels R, Lind B, Villas Tome C, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL. Publication rate of paper and podium presentations from the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society Annual Meeting. Eur Spine J 2016; 25: 2311-6. [Crossref] 11. Larian B, Namazie A, Agha N, Azizzadeh B, Blackwell K, Wang MB. Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 125: 166-9. [Crossref] 12. Roy D, Sankar V, Hughes JP, Jones A, Fenton JE. Publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society meetings. Clin Otolaryngol 2001; 26: 253-6. [Crossref] 13. Peng PH, Wasserman JM, Rosenfeld RM. Factors influencing publication of abstracts presented at the AAO-HNS Annual Meeti