Producción y repercusión científica de un grupo de urgenciólogos españoles seleccionados por su trayectoria investigadora / No disponible

OBJETIVO: Investigar el comportamiento de distintos indicadores de producción y repercusión científicas en médicos investigadores espańoles que trabajan en el ámbito de la medicina de urgencias y emergencias y definir un patrón global para el conjunto de ellos. MÉTODO: Estudio piloto exploratorio en 24 urgenciólogos. CRITERIOS DE INCLUSIÓN: estar en el comité editorial o el panel de expertos de EMERGENCIAS, experiencia investigadora de al menos 10 ańos y tener 20 trabajos indexados en Science Citation Index Expanded, al menos 5 de ellos en los últimos 3 ańos. Para cada autor, se obtuvieron los ańos de experiencia, el número de trabajos publicados (indicador de producción) y el número de citas y el factor de impacto acumulado y el índice h (indicadores de repercusión).Estos indicadores se calcularon para cada ańo de experiencia de su trayectoria investigadora. Se contrastó esta experiencia y el valor alcanzado en estos indicadores y la evolución temporal de dichos indicadores, tanto individualmente como para todo el colectivo, mediante modelos de regresión lineal y polinomial. RESULTADOS: La experiencia media investigadora fue de 19 ± 7 ańos (rango: 10-35). La relación entre la puntuación alcanzada por los investigadores en los indicadores evaluados y los ańos de experiencia no fue significativa. En cambio, la evolución temporal de estos indicadores se ajustó mejor a un modelo cuadrático que a uno lineal: individualmente, los valores de R2 fueron siempre superiores a 0,90 en todos los indicadores; globalmente, el mejor ajuste se produjo con el índice h (R2 = 0,54). En este último, se distinguía un comportamiento diferenciado para los investigadores de 20 o menos años de experiencia (mejor ajuste, R2 = 0,71, y crecimiento más acelerado) y los de más de 20 años de experiencia (R2 = 0,61). CONCLUSIONES: Es posible describir un modelo de evolución temporal de los distintos indicadores de producción y repercusión científicas para los urgenciólogos investigadores españoles. Esta curva de desarrollo puede utilizarse en el futuro para comparar este comportamiento con el de otros colectivos de investigadores o con el de urgenciólogos investigadores de otros países

OBJECTIVES: To investigate bibliometric indicators of research output, or productivity, and impact of selected Spanish emergency physicians who engage in research and to describe the behaviour of these indicators for this group of researchers as a whole. METHODS: Pilot study exploring indicators for a group of 24 emergency physicians who engage in research. The physicians were elected from among members of the editorial board and peer reviewers of the journal Emergencias. All had been publishing papers for at least 10 years and had authored at least 20 papers, including 5 in the last 3 years. The following information was collected for each author: publications in journals included in Science Citation Index Expanded; duration of career in medical research; number of publications as the output indicator; and number of cites, accumulated impact factor, and h-index as the impact indicators. These indicators were calculated for each year of the physicians' research careers. The results, including change in the indicators over time, were analyzed for individuals and for the group as a whole by means of both linear and polynomial regression models. RESULTS: The physicians had been engaged in research for a mean (SD) of 19 (7) years (range, 10-35 years). The associations between years of experience and the indicators of output and impact were not significant. Polynomial regression models fit the changes in these indicators over time better than linear models. Analyzed individually the R2values were always over 0.90 for all indicators in polynomial modelling; for the group as a whole, the h-index showed the best fit (R2 = 0.54). The h-index behaved differently for researchers with up to 20 years of experience (better fit,R2 = 0.71 as well as accelerated increase) and for those with more than 20 years of experience (R2 = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to model changes in the output and impact factors of Spanish emergency physicians who engage in research. The models can be used in the future to compare the behavior of these research indicators with those of other Spanish research groups or those of emergency physicians engaging in research in other countries

[Risk factors for cerebrospinal fluid shunt infection]. / Factores de riesgo de infección en procedimientos de derivación de líquido cefalorraquídeo.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Shunt-related infection is a major complication. The effort to face up to this problem has focused on therapy, analysis of risk factors and primary prevention. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for cerebrospinal fluid shunt infection. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent shunt placement at our hospital during the period of study. Procedures followed for less than 90 days were excluded. One hundred and nineteen procedures were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Infection rate per procedure was 8.4%. Previous cerebrospinal fluid infection, previous shunt and complete substitution of the shunt were identified as risk factors for infection in the univariate analysis. However, a multivariate analysis confirmed that previous cerebrospinal fluid infection was the only independent risk factor for shunt-related infection (p=0.011). CONCLUSION: Previous cerebrospinal fluid infection is an independent risk factor for shunt-related infection. Other factors such as age, gender, etiology of hydrocephalus, previous shunt or complete substitution of the shunt were not associated with increased risk of infection.