Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Finding Free OER Textbooks Online: Untangling the Web
Previous Article in Journal
Papers in and Papers out of the Spotlight: Comparative Bibliometric and Altmetrics Analysis of Biomedical Reports with and without News Media Stories
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Publications
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/publications12040031
publications-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Scientific Production in Family Medicine in Mexico

by
Indira R. Mendiola-Pastrana
1,
Eduardo López-Ortiz
1,
Rubí G. Hernández-López
2,
Luisa F. Romero-Henríquez
3,
Rocío Dávila-Mendoza
1 and
Geovani López-Ortiz
1,*
1
Subdivisión de Medicina Familiar, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de Mexico 04510, Mexico
2
Oficina de Análisis del Plan de Salud, Subgerencia Técnica de Plan de Salud, Gerencia de Administración del Plan de Salud, Banco de México, Ciudad de Mexico 06000, Mexico
3
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de Mexico 04510, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Publications 2024, 12(4), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040031
Submission received: 1 August 2024 / Revised: 11 September 2024 / Accepted: 22 September 2024 / Published: 27 September 2024
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Main study topics in the analyzed articles.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Distribution of papers published in Mexico from 2014 to 2023.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Network of interinstitutional interactions. The thickness of the lines and numbers in blue represent the quantity and the count of interactions, respectively. The network design was created using Pajek version 5.18, with a random circular layout, and edited in Microsoft PowerPoint 2019. CMCMF: Mexican Council for Certification in Family Medicine. ANM: National Academy of Medicine. SSA: Ministry of Health. UNAM: National Autonomous University of Mexico. IMSS: Mexican Social Security Institute. ITESM: Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education. ISSSTE: Institute of Social Security and Services for State Workers. HGT: General Hospital of Ticomán. UABC: Autonomous University of Baja California. UAG: Autonomous University of Guerrero; UAT: Autonomous University of Tamaulipas. HAL: Ángeles León Hospital. UG: University of Guanajuato. HGM: General Hospital of Mexico Eduardo Liceaga. UWH: West-Hill University.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Keywords identified in the analyzed articles.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objective: This paper aims to evaluate the quality of scientific production in family medicine in Mexico and identify gaps in the development of research in this medical discipline. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed original articles, reviews, case reports, and editorials published from Mexico, from the year 2014 to 2023, in the three family medicine journals edited in the country. Several bibliometric indicators were evaluated. Attributes that confer validity in original articles were analyzed, and through random sampling, 10% were selected to determine their quality using checklists. Results: A total of 627 articles were analyzed; among these, 57.89% were original, 19.61% reviews, 17.06% editorials, and 5.42% case reports. Our analysis revealed significant disparities in research activity across regions in Mexico. Productivity, transience, and isolation indices were 2.79, 78.58%, and 54.05%, respectively, while the Price index was 42.74%. A small percentage of articles received funding and followed guidelines for medical research reporting (0.47% and 0.63%, respectively). The analysis of validity attributes in original articles revealed that 92.83% were observational, 88.98% were unicentric, in 47.38%, no sample size calculation was performed or specified, while in 12.12%, sampling was probabilistic. In the evaluation of the original articles, more than 60% showed limitations that compromised their quality. Conclusions: The number of published articles, along with their bibliometric, validity, and quality attributes, reflect significant gaps in the generation and dissemination of knowledge in family medicine in Mexico. This shows a transgenerational problem, identified in many countries, where the advancement of family medicine as a specialty is limited by low research productivity and methodological weaknesses in reporting.

1. Introduction

Mexico is a country comprising 32 federal entities with a population of approximately 130 million [1]. Geographically, it ranks 13th worldwide and is currently the twelfth-largest economy in the world [2]. Cardiovascular, metabolic, and respiratory diseases dominate the morbidity and mortality profile in the country [3,4,5]. Approximately 90% of the population is served at the primary care level, where more than 300,000 daily family medicine consultations are conducted [6].
Despite the importance of family medicine in primary care and the provision of quality health services [7,8], research in this field in Mexico has historically been limited and unsystematized [9,10]. In the country, only three specialized family medicine journals serve as one of the main vehicles for disseminating knowledge in this specialty. However, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding the quality, scope, and scientific output reported in these journals, highlighting the need for a comprehensive evaluation to analyze these factors. This issue requires urgent attention, as a better understanding of scientific production in family medicine is crucial to improving the quality of research [11].
Bibliometric analyses are an option to approach the quantitative study of scientific production in various fields of knowledge, as they can be used to analyze research trends, study themes, methodological approaches, and the impact of publications in specific disciplines [12,13]. These analyses not only facilitate the understanding of how countries generate and disseminate knowledge but also allow for the identification of factors that influence the publication of results in specific areas, such as family medicine while highlighting the evolution toward more informative and accessible standards in scientific communication [14,15].
In the context of primary care, these analyses are essential for research in health and public policy. They also enable decision-makers to identify strengths and weaknesses in research areas relevant to the population’s health needs [16,17]. Furthermore, their accessibility makes them an effective tool for evaluating global and national issues, offering the ability to quantify, map, and analyze scientific production through key indicators without requiring significant resources or infrastructure [18,19]. In the specific case of Mexico, they can identify gaps impacting public health in the country and contribute to closing them, potentially promoting the development of public policies to address the identified issues, hence the importance of conducting such bibliometric analyses in specific geographical contexts.
Equally important, the critical appraisal of scientific articles plays a pivotal role in assessing the reliability, validity, and relevance of the findings. This process allows the identification of areas for improvement to enhance the quality of research and strengthen evidence-based decision making [20,21,22]. Integrating bibliometric analysis with critical appraisal promotes a deeper understanding of the research, which is essential to guide efforts and resources toward areas that benefit knowledge generation and medical practice.
Given the above, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of scientific production in family medicine in Mexico and identify gaps in the development of research in this medical discipline. To carry out this analysis, we focused on the three family medicine journals published in the country.

2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. We gathered information from the Atención Familiar, Archivos en Medicina Familiar, and Revista Mexicana de Medicina Familiar journals. We included original articles, reviews, case reports, and editorials conducted in Mexico from 2014 (the year Revista Mexicana de Medicina Familiar started publishing) to 2023; we excluded articles conducted in other countries, book reviews, news and cultural notes, supplements, and letters to the editor. For each article, data such as the year of publication, journal, title, type of article, subject, authors, location, institution of conduct, collaborating institutions, keywords—when applicable—, number of citations, funding sources, and adherence to guidelines for reporting study types (i.e., STROBE, SRQR, or CONSORT) were collected on Microsoft Excel 2022 sheets.
The articles were categorized into different study topics. The number of articles published by federal entities in the Mexican Republic was analyzed. Various bibliometric indicators such as productivity indices, transience, Lotka, and collaboration indices were calculated [23,24,25]. The most frequent keywords, along with the language of the references used and their validity, were analyzed; the isolation and Price indices were also identified [24,26].
Using Google Scholar on 28 December 2023, we obtained the number and type of documents (i.e., article, book, or thesis) that cited the articles published in the three journals. We also consulted the Scopus and Web of Science databases.
To evaluate the validity of the original articles, the study design, locality (unicentric or multicentric), sample size calculation, sampling type, and sample value were recorded. A simple random sampling method was employed to select 10% of the original articles, following these steps: identification of the total population, organization by year and journal, assignment of sequential numbers, generation of random numbers in Excel using =RANDOM(), and selection of the corresponding articles for evaluation. Once the articles were randomly selected, a critical appraisal was conducted using The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale Checklist, adapted for cross-sectional studies, and the checklists from The Joanna Briggs Institute for quasi-experimental, case-control, qualitative, and cohort studies [27,28,29,30,31]. These checklists assess the quality of studies using criteria that assign one point for each fulfilled item, allowing for the identification of strengths, limitations, and a systematic evaluation of the robustness of the results. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale evaluates the selection of participants, group comparability, and outcome measurement, while the JBI checklists review aspects such as bias minimization, variable control, and methodological rigor, depending on the study type. Ultimately, the scores obtained provide a structured assessment of the quality and reliability of the studies.
The critical appraisal was conducted independently by peers [I R.-M-P.; G.L-O.], and subsequently, Cohen’s Kappa was used to assess agreement between observers to verify homogeneity.
Since no work was conducted with patients or medical records and the information used was available on websites, the approval of this research by an ethics committee was not required.

3. Results

A total of 627 articles were analyzed; 317 (50.55%) were published in Atención Familiar, 157 (25.03%) in Revista Mexicana de Medicina Familiar, and 153 (24.40%) in Archivos en Medicina Familiar. When analyzing the output by institutions, it was identified that 330 (52.63%) articles were published by the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS), 86 (13.72%) by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), and 62 (9.89%) by the Ministry of Health (SSA), while the remaining 23.76% involved councils and colleges of family medicine, universities, and public and private health institutions (Table 1).
Of all articles, 363 (57.89%) were original research, 123 (19.61%) were reviews, 107 (17.06%) were editorials, and 34 (5.42%) were clinical cases. Fifty-seven study topics were identified, diabetes mellitus was the most common (9.57%), which was followed by topics in family medicine (family medicine practice, family, family functionality, among others) at 8.93% and respiratory diseases and COVID-19 at 7.34%. Figure 1 displays the topics covered in 20 or more articles, comprising 67.78% of the total; the remaining percentage was classified under other study topics (Supplementary Table S1).
When analyzing the origin of the articles, Mexico City was the federal entity with the highest number of publications at 264 (42.10%). Of the remaining 31 federal entities, 28 published, on average, 12.67 articles each over ten years, with 12 of those publishing five or fewer articles. No publications were recorded in three federal entities (Campeche, Oaxaca, and Zacatecas) (Figure 2), whereas eight articles did not specify the place of origin but reported that they were conducted in Mexico.
A total of 2161 authors signed the articles. The total productivity index was 2.79. There were 380 (60.60%) publications written by a maximum of three authors (range 1–20). Eighteen were identified as large producers, 269 as intermediates, and 1053 as transients (Table 2), resulting in a transience index of 78.58%. The Lotka index for major producers ranged from 1 to 1.60 (Supplementary Table S2).
The collaboration index was 3.44; in 208 (33.17%) articles, at least two different institutions participated (range of 2–7). The institutions with the most inter-institutional collaborations were IMSS, which interacted with five universities and two healthcare entities, and UNAM, which interacted with four healthcare entities (Figure 3).
The most frequently mentioned keywords (≥10 mentions) included treatment, breast cancer, anxiety, and adolescence, which were each mentioned ten times. The terms Elderly, Family Medicine, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus were the most represented, with 32, 65, and 69 mentions, respectively (Figure 4).
When analyzing all the citations used in the published works (n = 11,550), 6243 were in Spanish, resulting in an isolation index of 54.05%; the remaining citations were in English. The median number of references used in the articles was 18 (IQR 12–24) with those older than five years having a median of 9 (IQR 4–15), while those five years old or less had a median of 6 references (IQR 3–12). In 50 (7.97%) articles; all references were >5 years old, while in 22 (3.50%) all citations were ≤5 years old. The overall Price index was 42.74%.
As of 28 December 2023, articles published in Atención Familiar had been cited 2537 times, followed by Archivos en Medicina Familiar with 401 citations and Revista Mexicana de Medicina Familiar with 75 (Table 3). According to Google Scholar, original articles received the most citations, with 2478 (82.24%), which was followed by reviews with 373 (12.37%), editorials with 154 (5.11%), and clinical cases with 8 (0.26%) citations. The majority of citations originated from theses (59.50%), which were followed by articles from Spanish-speaking medical journals (40.29%). Only fifty-six (8.93%) citations were identified in English-language articles in the Scopus and Web of Science databases.
Of all the articles, three (0.47%) reported having funding, and four (0.63%) indicated adherence to guidelines for reporting medical research.

Analysis of Original Articles

Of the 363 original articles analyzed, 211 (58.12%) were published in Atención Familiar, while Revista Mexicana de Medicina Familiar and Archivos en Medicina Familiar published 82 (22.58%) and 70 (19.28%), respectively.
When evaluating attributes of internal validity, it was identified that 337 (92.83%) of the original articles were observational; of these, 288 (79.33%) were cross-sectional: 164 (45.17%) were descriptive, and 124 (34.16%) were analytical. Thirty-one (8.53%) articles were multicentric, while in 153 (42.14%), a sample size calculation was performed; the sample size ranged from 2 to 14,770 participants, with a median of 134 (IQR 68.5–248), in 241 (66.39%) articles, the sample size was ≤200; in 44 (12.12%), probabilistic random sampling was conducted (Table 4).
Thirty-six articles were randomly selected, of which 24 (66.66%) were cross-sectional [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55], 4 (11.11%) were quasi-experimental [56,57,58,59], 1 (2.77%) was a case-control [60], 4 (11.11%) were qualitative [61,62,63,64], and 3 (8.33%) had a cohort [65,66,67]. According to the Newcastle–Ottawa classification, the minimum score for cross-sectional studies was 2 points, and the maximum was 7. Overall, 15 (62.5%) of the articles were classified as unsatisfactory (4 or fewer points), 8 (33.33%) were satisfactory studies (5 to 6 points), and 1 (4.16%) was good (7 points or more). Sixteen (66.66%) articles had limitations in the selection categories and 18 (75%) had limitations in comparability (Supplementary Table S3).
In the analysis of quasi-experimental, case-control, qualitative, and cohort studies, it was identified that most did not reach half of the score indicated by the JBI checklists (Supplementary Table S4).
In the homogeneity analysis among evaluators of the original articles analyzed, a correlation of α = 0.73 was found. In the global evaluation of the original articles, it was identified that 23 (63.88%) showed significant deficiencies that compromised their quality. Table 5 summarizes the evaluation parameters identified in the referred studies.

4. Discussion

This work analyzed the scientific production of family medicine journals edited in Mexico. The IMSS published 330 (52.63%) articles (Table 1). While this figure represents a significant percentage, it contrasts with the number of family physicians working at that institution (n = 22,214) who provide more than 75 million annual consultations [6,68]. This scenario was similar in the rest of the institutions and organizations that reported publications during the study period.
On the other hand, publishing only 627 articles in ten years in the three journals is insufficient to systematically address Mexico’s primary care health challenges. In this regard, the country ranks among the top worldwide in obesity, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, and metabolic syndrome, among other conditions [4]. In contrast to the number of articles reported, a bibliometric study conducted in the United States identified that, in 2015 alone, thirteen family medicine departments published 1052 articles [69]. This low productivity is not a problem exclusive to Mexico; various countries, both high- and low-income, face similar challenges due to the lack of infrastructure and funding for primary care research, which impacts the development of adequate strategies to address public health needs [70]. The low productivity can be attributed to the high demand for medical care and the educational, academic, and institutional limitations in research, which are factors that have been identified in previous studies [10,71,72]. This highlights the urgent need to improve medical training in research and strengthen the infrastructure that supports it [72,73].
The lack of development in primary care research has a significant global impact, affecting scientific output and the implementation of new strategies and evidence-based practices. Bibliometric analyses reveal that 80% of the articles published in the highest-impact journals related to general practice predominantly come from the United Kingdom and the United States [74,75]. Such analyses have also identified sustained growth in countries like Germany, France, and the Netherlands, suggesting a diversification dynamic in global scientific production in primary care [75].
This dominance in research development is also reflected in the number of journals edited by English-speaking countries, which occupy the top positions in family medicine and primary care [76]. In contrast, Mexico’s contribution to global scientific output in family medicine and primary care remains scarce, accounting for only ˂0.1–0.25% of publications worldwide [74,76]; this figure underscores a significant gap in research within an area that is crucial to public health in any nation for improving health outcomes and reducing inequalities in access to medical services.
The distribution of the topics in the analyzed publications (Figure 1) is related to Mexico’s morbidity and mortality profile. Of the nine categories of clinical topics in the published articles, 6 (66%) are part of the 20 main causes of morbidity, and 5 (55%) appear within the 10 main causes of mortality for the year 2023 [77,78].
The distribution of publications by federal entities in the Mexican Republic shows significant asymmetries (Figure 2); 51% of the scientific production was concentrated in Mexico City, State of Mexico, and Morelos despite these federal entities having only 12.1% of the IMSS family medicine units at the national level. On the other hand, the 12 federal entities with the lowest productivity (≤5 articles each in 10 years) contributed 5.6% of the total publications. This indicates a disconnection between research and medical care in different regions of the country. This may be one of the first points to intervene through a transdisciplinary and inter-institutional approach. Continuing with a dynamic in which scientific production is geographically and institutionally biased can impact different health contexts [79], compromising the quality of medical care.
Among the bibliometric indicators analyzed, the transience (78.58%) and isolation (54.05%) indices indicate a low rate of continuity and consolidation of work teams and a preference for information sources in Spanish, which may reflect limitations in integrating global advances in research [80,81,82,83]. Moreover, the Price index (42.74%) suggests that while there is a current knowledge base on which research is supported, it would be beneficial to intensify efforts to incorporate more recent research.
Regarding the frequency of citation of the articles published in the three journals, it was observed that most are cited in theses, indicating that a significant part of those who consult them are doctors in training. This trend suggests that journals play a role as vehicles of academic–scientific communication in the educational field and could partially explain the limited presence of citations in higher-impact databases such as Scopus and Web of Science.
Notably, the percentage of articles that reported having funding (0.47%) reflects the insufficient support to trigger research in this and other scientific disciplines in the country [84,85], as well as the lack of knowledge of incentives to develop this activity [10]. Regarding this, it has been identified that increasing the infrastructure and resources available to develop research in family medicine improves the quality of care [86].
Regarding the articles that adhered to guidelines for reporting medical research (0.63%), it is important that journals promote their adherence and the importance they have in increasing the quality and transparency of the reports made [87,88,89].
The original articles analyzed presented various methodological characteristics that can compromise their internal and external validity. The high percentage of observational studies (92.38%) prevents the establishment of risk associations due to confounding effects and bias control. In the same sense, the unicentric nature of most studies (88.9%), as well as limitations identified in the sample size calculation and the type of sampling (Table 4), affect the precision of the estimators and the representativeness of the population, all of which increase biases in the reported findings. Regarding this, it has been pointed out that the quality and precision in the reporting of observational studies vary considerably compared to other types of studies, such as randomized controlled clinical trials [90], so the promotion of the latter in the field of family medicine in the country must be a key point to intervene due to the impact they have on medical decision making [91].
When evaluating the quality of the original articles, using various checklists, it was identified that 6 out of 10 presented substantial deficiencies that impacted their quality (Table 5). This suggests that more than half of the articles published could present significant limitations that compromise the reliability of the findings reported. This aspect is not minor or characteristic of a particular medical specialty [92].
One of the main criticisms of the knowledge generated in medicine focuses on preventable methodological failures, statistical illiteracy, useless, false, irreproducible, and lack of transparency in their reporting [93,94,95,96,97]. These deficiencies can compromise the credibility of the research, raising serious concerns about the findings’ validity and utility.
Addressing these deficiencies by paying greater attention to methodological quality in the conduct and presentation of medical research is imperative. This includes promoting knowledge about the principles of study design, rigorous application of appropriate statistical methods, and adherence to transparent and complete reporting standards.
Since the origin of this specialty, the development of research in family medicine has been a persistent challenge [71]. Despite advances in this activity in various parts of the world, this progress is not reflected in several countries in Latin America, including Mexico [10]. For this reason, it is essential to know and disseminate various initiatives to strengthen this activity [98,99].
Among the key measures to address this lag should be the strengthening of teaching in research methodology and scientific writing, implementing studies with a higher level of evidence, promoting the training and consolidation of research groups, fostering collaboration between universities and health institutions, and increasing support for family medicine journals in the country. However, above all, it is important to generate greater awareness of what research implies in improving medical care [86]; these tasks must be irrevocable in all medical training and practice areas. It is reported that education in research and appraisal scientific evidence favors better medical decision making [100].
Finally, it is worth highlighting that although this research focused on Mexico as a case study, the results obtained can serve as a reference for comparing the quality and gaps in the development of research in family medicine and primary care, both locally and globally.

Limitations

One of the main limitations is that the analysis was restricted to three specific journals, so various research studies in family medicine were not included in this study. However, the journals analyzed here are one of the main means of reporting research on family medicine in the country [11]. They are edited by the university that started the residency and that trains the largest number of family physicians in Mexico (Atención Familiar) as well as by the Mexican Federation of Specialists and Residents in Family Medicine (Revista Mexicana de Medicina Familiar) and by the Pan-American Academic Association of Family Medicine (Archivos en Medicina Familiar). Furthermore, because all data capture was performed manually, there may have been notation problems.

5. Conclusions

The various parameters evaluated show limitations in the generation and dissemination of knowledge in family medicine in Mexico; given the implications that this medical specialty has in health systems worldwide, it is urgent to generate strategies to promote the development of more and higher-quality research. For this, it is necessary to strengthen the research infrastructure and develop policies incentivizing interinstitutional and multidisciplinary collaboration. It is crucial to prioritize increasing resources for family medicine research and supporting novice researchers. Additionally, educational programs that strengthen research skills and knowledge generation in this medical discipline should be implemented.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/publications12040031/s1, Table S1: Classification of the study topics addressed in family medicine journals; Table S2: Lotka index for large producers; Table S3: Critical appraisal of cross-sectional studies; Table S4: Evaluation of studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklists.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.R.M.-P., E.L.-O. and G.L.-O.; data collection, I.R.M.-P., R.D.-M. and G.L.-O.; data curation, I.R.M.-P., R.G.H.-L., R.D.-M. and G.L.-O.; data analysis, I.R.M.-P., E.L.-O., R.G.H.-L., L.F.R.-H., R.D.-M. and G.L.-O.; writing—original draft preparation, E.L.-O. and G.L-O.; writing—review and editing, I.R.M.-P., E.L.-O., R.G.H.-L., L.F.R.-H., R.D.-M. and G.L.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data generated and analyzed in this study are not publicly available, as they will be used in future research. However, reasonable requests for data access may be considered, subject to review and approval by the research team.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Indicadores Demográficos de México de 1950 a 2050. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/conapo/documentos/la-situacion-demografica-de-mexico-2022 (accessed on 21 April 2014).
  2. International Monetary Fund. Report for Selected Countries and Subjects. Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/April/weo-report (accessed on 21 April 2014).
  3. Rojas-Martínez, R.; Escamilla-Nuñez, C.; Aguilar-Salinas, C.A.; Castro-Porras, L.; Romero-Martínez, M.; Lazcano-Ponce, E. Trends in the mortality of diabetes in Mexico from 1998 to 2022: A joinpoint regression and age-period-cohort effect analysis. Public Health 2024, 226, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. GBD Compare. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Available online: http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare (accessed on 21 April 2014).
  5. Palacio-Mejía, L.S.; Hernández-Ávila, J.E.; Hernández-Ávila, M.; Dyer-Leal, D.; Barranco, A.; Quezada-Sánchez, A.D.; Alvarez-Aceves, M.; Cortés-Alcalá, R.; Fernández-Wheatley, J.L.; Ordoñez-Hernández, I.; et al. Leading causes of excess mortality in Mexico during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020–2021: A death certificates study in a middle-income country. Lancet Reg. Health-Am. 2022, 13, 100303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Nota de Prensa. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/imss/es/articulos/la-medicina-familiar-en-el-imss (accessed on 21 April 2014).
  7. Baker, R.; Freeman, G.K.; Haggerty, J.L.; Bankart, M.J.; Nockels, K.H. Primary medical care continuity and patient mortality: A systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2020, 70, e600–e611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sandvik, H.; Hetlevik, Ø.; Blinkenberg, J.; Hunskaar, S. Continuity in general practice as predictor of mortality, acute hospitalisation, and use of out-of-hours care: A registry-based observational study in Norway. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2022, 72, e84–e90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ramirez-Aranda, J. Primary care research in México. In International Perspectives on Primary Care Research; Goodyear-Smith, F., Mash, B., Eds.; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. Río-de-la-Loza-Zamora, J.G.; López-Ortiz, G. Barreras para el desarrollo de investigación en medicina familiar en Iberoamérica: Revisión sistemática. Rev. Mex. Med. Fam. 2022, 9, 8334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. López-Ortiz, G. Toward a Greater Representation of Family Medicine in the National System of Researchers in Mexico. Aten. Fam. 2024, 31, 135–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cetin, M.; Long, B.; Gottlieb, M. A 10-year bibliometric analysis of publications in emergency medicine. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2022, 58, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Thompson, D.F.; Walker, C.K. A Descriptive and Historical Review of Bibliometrics with Applications to Medical Sciences. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 2015, 35, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Guizzardi, S.; Colangelo, M.T.; Mirandola, P.; Galli, C. Tracing the Evolution of Reviews and Research Articles in the Biomedical Literature: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Abstracts. Publications 2024, 12, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, T.A.; Lin, M.H.; Chen, Y.C.; Chen, T.J. The Time from Submission to Publication in Primary Health Care Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study. Publications 2024, 12, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pirri, S.; Lorenzoni, V.; Turchetti, G. Scoping review and bibliometric analysis of Big Data applications for Medication adherence: An explorative methodological study to enhance consistency in literature. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2020, 20, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Dufault, B.; Klar, N. The Quality of Modern Cross-Sectional Ecologic Studies: A Bibliometric Review. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 174, 1101–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Fu, H.Z.; Waltman, L. A large-scale bibliometric analysis of global climate change research between 2001 and 2018. Clim. Change 2022, 170, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Patel, J.J.; Hill, A.; Lee, Z.Y.; Heyland, D.K.; Stoppe, C. Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review: A Concise Review. Crit. Care Med. 2022, 50, 1371–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Manjali, J.; Gupta, T. Critical appraisal of a clinical research paper: What one needs to know. Cancer Res. Stat. Treat. 2020, 3, 545. [Google Scholar]
  22. Van Den Berg, J.; Berger, M.Y. Guidelines on acute gastroenteritis in children: A critical appraisal of their quality and applicability in primary care. BMC Fam. Pract. 2011, 12, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pérez-Andrés, C.; Estrada-Lorenzo, J.M.; Villar-Álvarez, F.; Rebollo-Rodríguez, M.J. Estudio bibliométrico de los artículos originales de la Revista Española de Salud Pública (1991–2000). Parte Primera: Indicadores generales. Rev. Esp. Salud Pública 2002, 76, 659–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Álvarez Solar, M.; López González, M.L.; Cueto Espinar, A. Indicadores bibliométricos de la investigación en atención primaria (1988–1992). Aten. Primaria 1996, 18, 230–236. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lotka, A.J. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 1926, 16, 317–323. [Google Scholar]
  26. Price, D.J. Networks of Scientific Papers: The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science 1965, 149, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Modesti, P.A.; Reboldi, G.; Cappuccio, F.P.; Agyemang, C.; Remuzzi, G.; Rapi, S.; Perruolo, E.; Parati, G.; ESH Working Group on CV Risk in Low Resource Settings. Panethnic Differences in Blood Pressure in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Barker, T.H.; Habibi, N.; Aromataris, E.; Stone, J.C.; Leonardi-Bee, J.; Sears, K.; Hasanoff, S.; Klugar, M.; Tufanaru, C.; Moola, S.; et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies. JBI Evid. Synth. 2024, 22, 378–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Available online: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL (accessed on 29 April 2014).
  30. Lockwood, C.; Munn, Z.; Porritt, K. Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. JBI Critical Appraisal Tools | JBI. Available online: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools (accessed on 29 April 2014).
  32. Camacho, S.J.E.; Medina, V.L.A.; Hernández de la Peña, C.A. Dislipidemia en pacientes escolares con sobrepeso u obesidad. Rev. Mex. Med. Fam. 2015, 2, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tello, P.M.L.; Mendoza, R.R.; Cobos, D.J.I. Síndrome de Burnout y síntomas depresivos en médicos residentes. Rev. Mex. Med. Fam. 2015, 2, 15–21. [Google Scholar]
  34. Velázquez-Cortés, M.; Estrada-Galindo, A.; Márquez-Celedonio, F.G. Asociación de sobrecarga del cuidador y discapacidad del paciente con enfermedad de Parkinson idiopática. Rev. Mex. Med. Fam. 2018, 5, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  35. Alamo-Romo, A.M.; Blanco-Castillo, L.; Villarreal-Ríos, E.; Galicia-Rodríguez, L.; Vargas-Daza, E.R. Estilos de vida en hijos de padres con diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Rev. Mex. Med. Fam. 2021, 8, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ramírez-López, P.; Acevedo, G.O.; González, P.A.A. Neuropatía diabética: Frecuencia, factores de riesgo y calidad de vida en pacientes de una clínica de primer nivel de atención. Arch. Med. Fam. 2017, 19, 105–111. [Google Scholar]
  37. Benitez-Maldonado, D.R.; Narváez-Rivera, J.L.; Guerrero, G.C.; Lozano-Nuevo, J.J.; Arana Pazos, K.C.; Rubio-Guerra, A.F. Diferencias en el grosor de la grasa epicárdica en pacientes con hipertensión, normotensión e hipertensión limítrofe. Arch. Med. Fam. 2018, 20, 113–117. [Google Scholar]
  38. Esquer, P.M.D.; Chávez, A.A.I.; Carballo, D.C.; Barrios, O.C. Prevalencia y evolución clínica de pacientes con COVID-19 en una Unidad de Medicina Familiar de Cd. Obregón, Sonora, México. Arch. Med. Fam. 2022, 24, 23–29. [Google Scholar]
  39. González-Domínguez, R.; Castillo-Feliciano, L.M.; González-Pedraza, A.A. Valoración gerontogeriátrica integral: Comparación diagnóstica entre el módulo gerontológico y la consulta externa. Aten. Fam. 2014, 21, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pavón-Mendoza, N.; Dickinson-Bannack, M.E.; González-Salinas, C. El climaterio como factor de riesgo en casos de disfunción conyugal. Aten. Fam. 2014, 21, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Martínez-Hernández, Y.O.; Guzmán-López, F.; Flores-Pulido, J.J.; Vázquez-Martínez, V.H. Factores familiares que favorecen el apego al tratamiento en casos de tuberculosis pulmonar. Aten. Fam. 2014, 21, 47–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Castillo-Hernández, M.; Hernández-Zavala, F.; Aguilar, V.M.; Duque-Molina, C.; Avilés-Hernández, R.; González-Rosas, C.E. Desarrollo intelectual en niños con enfermedades metabólicas congénitas: Experiencia en una unidad de Medicina Familiar. Aten. Fam. 2014, 21, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cárdenas-García, L.J.; Sánchez-Zamora, M.E.; Ramírez-de la Roche, O.F.; Robledo-Domínguez, A. Uso de la anticoncepción de emergencia en un grupo de estudiantes universitarias. Aten. Fam. 2014, 21, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aquiahuatl-Méndez, S.; Gutiérrez-Gabriel, I.; Vázquez-Cruz, E. Funcionalidad familiar en pacientes pediátricos con leucemia linfoblástica aguda. Aten. Fam. 2015, 22, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Angulo-Valenzuela, R.A.; Delgado-Quiñones, E.G.; Urióstegui-Espíritu, L.C.; Del-Río Patiño, J.G.; Figueroa-Hernández, G.; Montalbán-Castellanos, J.M. Prevalencia de depresión y dislipidemia en un grupo de adolescentes obesos mexicanos. Aten. Fam. 2016, 23, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. García-Morales, G.; Vega-Vega, S.P.; Tolentino-Alvarado, A. Prevalencia de enfermedad periodontal en embarazadas de una unidad de medicina familiar de Acapulco, Guerrero. Aten. Fam. 2016, 23, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. González-Toche, J.; Gómez-García, A.; Gómez-Alonso, C.; Álvarez-Paredes, M.A.; Álvarez-Aguilar, C. Asociación entre obesidad y depresión infantil en población escolar de una unidad de Medicina Familiar en Morelia, Michoacán. Aten. Fam. 2017, 24, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sánchez-Hernández, J.A.; González-Belén, L.; Rojas-Valderrama, K.; Muñoz-Zurita, G. Prevalencia de Candida albicans y su relación con cambios en el pH vaginal. Aten. Fam. 2017, 24, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bertehelli-Cardona, I.; Ángeles-Casas, M.; Mejía-Miranda, N.; Martínez-Ángeles, J. Obesidad en mujeres con cáncer de mama en un hospital general de zona de Hidalgo, México. Aten. Fam. 2018, 25, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. González-Rangel, M.A.; Mejía-Miranda, N.; Martínez-Ángeles, J. Nivel de conocimiento sobre cáncer cervicouterino en mujeres de 15 a 49 años en una unidad de medicina familiar. Aten. Fam. 2018, 25, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Torres Pérez, M.E.; Pech Novelo, F.; Zavala Rubio, J.D.; Martínez Castillo, E. Clasificación de la enfermedad renal crónica y uso de la tasa de filtrado glomerular en una unidad de medicina familiar. Aten. Fam. 2018, 25, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Balcázar Rincón, L.E.; Melchor Ruiz, L.C.; Ramírez Alcántara, Y.L. DiabetIMSS: Impacto del programa en el control metabólico de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en una unidad de medicina familiar. Aten. Fam. 2018, 25, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Aragón Medina, E.R.; Martínez Contreras, A.M.; López Parra, F.; Dautt Silva, J.; Magaña Méndez, A. Motivos de referencia al servicio de urgencias del primer al segundo nivel de atención. Aten. Fam. 2020, 27, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gay Patiño, J.V.; Jiménez Tlatenchi, D.E.; García González, J.E.; Zempoalteca Morales, A. Asociación entre ansiedad, sobrepeso y obesidad en población adulta adscrita a una unidad de medicina familiar. Aten. Fam. 2020, 27, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sosa Pérez, A.J.; Carrillo Flores, G.; Guerrero Morales, A.L. Asociación de sobrepeso y obesidad con cifras de presión elevada en niños de edad escolar. Aten. Fam. 2020, 27, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. López, P.A. Alcances de una estrategia educativa para desarrollar aptitud en lectura crítica de artículos de investigación. Arch. Med. Fam. 2016, 18, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
  57. Guzmán-Priego, C.G.; Baeza-Flores, G.C.; Atilano-Jiménez, D.; Torres-León, D.A.; León-Mondragón, O.J. Efecto de una intervención educativa sobre los parámetros bioquímicos de pacientes diabéticos de un servicio médico institucional. Aten. Fam. 2017, 24, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cadena Téllez, C.A.; Martini Blanquel, H.A. Impacto de una estrategia educativa sobre salud sexual y reproductiva en adolescentes de una escuela secundaria. Aten. Fam. 2019, 26, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Joanico-Morales, B.; Navarro-Pérez, A.; Salgado-Jiménez, M.A.; Villalobos-Aguayo, P.; Ríos-Oliveros, L.A. Intervención educativa en médicos internos de pregrado sobre semiología del aparato respiratorio. Aten. Fam. 2023, 30, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ramos-Salazar, L.V.; Castañeda-Sánchez, O.; López Ruiz, E.M. Factores biopsicosociales que influyen en la elección de la vasectomía. Aten. Fam. 2015, 22, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ramírez, V.I. Emociones, relación médico-paciente y cine: Comparación entre estudiantes y médicos familiares. Una investigación cualitativa. Rev. Mex. Med. Fam. 2016, 3, 15–23. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ramírez-Villaseñor, I. La enseñanza de la relación médico-paciente con poder terapéutico: Enfocado con la teoría fundamentada constructivista. Rev. Mex. Med. Fam. 2022, 9, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hernández-Ordóñez, R.; Domínguez-Espinoza, M.G. Conocimientos y actitudes de los médicos residentes sobre la pandemia de COVID-19. Rev. Mex. Med. Fam. 2023, 10, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Joanico-Morales, B.; Nolasco-Hesiquio, H. Presentación de casos clínicos por médicos de pregrado en la entrega de guardia, estudio etnográfico. Aten. Fam. 2023, 30, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Villa-Manzano, A.I.; Jiménez-Bernardino, J.A.; Vázquez-Solís, G.; Palomera-Ávila, F.M. Comparación de la efectividad del tratamiento de picadura de alacrán por Guía de Práctica Clínica versus Dosis reducida. Estudio de Cohorte. Arch. Med. Fam. 2020, 22, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  66. Medina, A.F.; Bedolla, G.C.P.; Guerrero, S.J.F. Asociación entre la depresión y la ansiedad con el mal control glicémico de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Arch. Med. Fam. 2023, 25, 227–233. [Google Scholar]
  67. Chávez-Alejo, J.; Salas-Reyes, J.A.; Zempoalteca-Morales, A.; Guerrero-Morales, A.L. Actividad física y ganancia de peso en mujeres embarazadas adscritas a una unidad de medicina familiar. Aten. Fam. 2023, 24, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. López-Ortiz, G. Investigar y publicar en Medicina Familiar. Aten. Fam. 2017, 24, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  69. Liaw, W.; Bazemore, A.W.; Ewigman, B.; Turin, T.C.; McCorry, D.; Petterson, S.; Dovey, S.M. Advancing bibliometric assessment of research productivity: An analysis of US Departments of Family Medicine. J. Prim. Health Care 2020, 12, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Hay, A.D.; Rortveit, G.; Purdy, S.; Adams, J.; Sanci, L.A.; Schermer, T.R.; Schers, H.J.; van der Windt, D.A. Primary care research—An international responsibility. Fam. Pract. 2012, 29, 499–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Bowman, M.A.; Lucan, S.C.; Rosenthal, T.C.; Mainous, A.G.; James, P.A. Family Medicine Research in the United States From the late 1960s Into the Future. Fam. Med. 2017, 49, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  72. Gotler, R.S. Unfinished Business: The Role of Research in Family Medicine. Ann. Fam. Med. 2019, 17, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ho, T.; Marzolf, B.A.; Curtin, A.D.; Biggs, R. Protocol for the 2023 CERA General Membership Survey. PRiMER 2024, 8, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Duguet, T.C.; Ibanez, G.; Schuers, M.; Lebeau, J.-P.; Roser, K.; Gomes, C.S.; Cadwallader, J.-S. General practice-related MeSH terms in main journals: A bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2021. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2024, 74, e120–e125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Glanville, J.; Kendrick, T.; McNally, R.; Campbell, J.; Hobbs, F.R. Research output on primary care in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States: Bibliometric analysis. BMJ 2011, 342, d1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. SJR—International Science Ranking. Available online: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=2700&category=2714 (accessed on 24 September 2014).
  77. Secretaría de Salud. Anuarios de Morbilidad 1984 a 2022. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/salud/acciones-y-programas/anuarios-de-morbilidad-1984-a-2022 (accessed on 24 May 2014).
  78. Gobierno de México. Defunciones Cifras Oficiales Definitivas 2022. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2022/EDR/EDR2021_10.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2014).
  79. Danchev, V.; Rzhetsky, A.; Evans, J.A. Centralized scientific communities are less likely to generate replicable results. eLife 2019, 8, e43094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. López-Torres Hidalgo, J.; Párraga-Martínez, I.; Martín-Álvarez, R.; Tranche-Iparraguirre, S. Mapa bibliométrico de la investigación realizada en atención primaria en España durante el periodo 2013-2017. Aten. Primaria 2020, 52, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Oswaldo Suárez, J. Análisis bibliométrico de la revista Infectio, 1995 a 2011. Infectio 2012, 16, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Schuers, M.; Joulakian, M.; Kerdelhué, G.; Segas, L.; Grosjean, J.; Darmoni, S.J.; Griffon, N. Lost in translation? A multilingual Query Builder improves the quality of PubMed queries: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2017, 17, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Ransing, R.; Vadivel, R.; El Halabi, S.; Jatchavala, C.; Shalbafan, M.; Noël, C.; Noor, I.M.; Yee, A.; Gürcan, A.; Ramalho, R. Language as Multi-Level Barrier in Health Research and the Way Forward. Indian. J. Psychol. Med. 2023, 45, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Quiroga-Garza, A.; Garza-Cisneros, A.N.; E Elizondo-Omaña, R.; Vilchez-Cavazos, J.F.; De-Oca-Luna, R.M.; Villarreal-Silva, E.; Guzman-Lopez, S.; Gonzalez-Gonzalez, J.G. Research barriers in the Global South: Mexico. J. Glob. Health 2022, 12, 03032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Lazcano, A. Quo vadis, Mexican science? Science 2019, 365, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Huffstetler, A.; Byun, H.; Jabbarpour, Y. Family Medicine Research Is Not a Federal Priority. Am. Fam. Physician 2023, 108, 541B–541C. Available online: https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2023/1200/graham-center-family-medicine-research.html (accessed on 24 May 2014).
  87. Phillips, W.R.; Sturgiss, E.; Glasziou, P.; Olde Hartman, T.C.; Orkin, A.M.; Prathivadi, P.; Reeve, J.; Russell, G.M.; van Weel, C. Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care—The CRISP Statement. Ann. Fam. Med. 2023, 21, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. EQUATOR Network | Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research. Available online: https://www.equator-network.org/ (accessed on 24 May 2014).
  89. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations. Available online: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2014).
  90. Brooke, B.S.; Schwartz, T.A.; Pawlik, T.M. MOOSE Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational Studies. JAMA Surg. 2021, 156, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hopewell, S.; Boutron, I.; Chan, A.-W.; Collins, G.S.; de Beyer, J.A.; Hróbjartsson, A.; Nejstgaard, C.H.; Østengaard, L.; Schulz, K.F.; Tunn, R.; et al. An update to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines to enhance transparency in randomized trials. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 1740–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Goldacre, B.; Heneghan, C. How medicine is broken, and how we can fix it. BMJ 2015, 350, h3397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chalmers, I.; Glasziou, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009, 374, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Altman, D.G. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994, 308, 283–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Ioannidis, J.P.A. How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS Med. 2014, 11, e1001747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med. 2005, 2, e124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Hunter, P. The reproducibility “crisis”: Reaction to replication crisis should not stifle innovation. EMBO Rep. 2017, 18, 1493–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Van Weel, C. Improving Health Care Globally: A Critical Review of the Necessity of Family Medicine Research and Recommendations to Build Research Capacity. Ann. Fam. Med. 2004, 2, S5–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Newton, W.; Asif, I.M.; Weidner, A. A Milestone for Promoting Research in Family Medicine. Ann. Fam. Med. 2023, 21, 564–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Meador, K.J. Decline of clinical research in academic medical centers. Neurology 2015, 85, 1171–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publications 12 00031 g001
Figure 1. Main study topics in the analyzed articles.
Figure 1. Main study topics in the analyzed articles.
Publications 12 00031 g001
Publications 12 00031 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of papers published in Mexico from 2014 to 2023.
Figure 2. Distribution of papers published in Mexico from 2014 to 2023.
Publications 12 00031 g002
Publications 12 00031 g003
Figure 3. Network of interinstitutional interactions. The thickness of the lines and numbers in blue represent the quantity and the count of interactions, respectively. The network design was created using Pajek version 5.18, with a random circular layout, and edited in Microsoft PowerPoint 2019. CMCMF: Mexican Council for Certification in Family Medicine. ANM: National Academy of Medicine. SSA: Ministry of Health. UNAM: National Autonomous University of Mexico. IMSS: Mexican Social Security Institute. ITESM: Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education. ISSSTE: Institute of Social Security and Services for State Workers. HGT: General Hospital of Ticomán. UABC: Autonomous University of Baja California. UAG: Autonomous University of Guerrero; UAT: Autonomous University of Tamaulipas. HAL: Ángeles León Hospital. UG: University of Guanajuato. HGM: General Hospital of Mexico Eduardo Liceaga. UWH: West-Hill University.
Figure 3. Network of interinstitutional interactions. The thickness of the lines and numbers in blue represent the quantity and the count of interactions, respectively. The network design was created using Pajek version 5.18, with a random circular layout, and edited in Microsoft PowerPoint 2019. CMCMF: Mexican Council for Certification in Family Medicine. ANM: National Academy of Medicine. SSA: Ministry of Health. UNAM: National Autonomous University of Mexico. IMSS: Mexican Social Security Institute. ITESM: Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education. ISSSTE: Institute of Social Security and Services for State Workers. HGT: General Hospital of Ticomán. UABC: Autonomous University of Baja California. UAG: Autonomous University of Guerrero; UAT: Autonomous University of Tamaulipas. HAL: Ángeles León Hospital. UG: University of Guanajuato. HGM: General Hospital of Mexico Eduardo Liceaga. UWH: West-Hill University.
Publications 12 00031 g003
Publications 12 00031 g004
Figure 4. Keywords identified in the analyzed articles.
Figure 4. Keywords identified in the analyzed articles.
Publications 12 00031 g004
Table 1. Scientific production in the three family medicine journals published in Mexico according to participating institutions or associations.
Table 1. Scientific production in the three family medicine journals published in Mexico according to participating institutions or associations.
Institutions or AssociationsFrequency%
Mexican Social Security Institute33052.63
National Autonomous University of Mexico8613.72
Ministry of Health629.89
Other public universities457.18
Colleges or councils of Family Medicine223.51
Institute of Security and Social Services for State Workers (ISSSTE)193.03
Private universities121.91
Private hospitals121.91
Not specified111.75
Naval Hospital91.44
Social Security Institute of the State of Mexico and Municipalities (ISSEMyM)81.28
National Polytechnic Institute60.96
Other government institutions50.80
Total627100%
Table 2. Classification of producers according to the Lotka index.
Table 2. Classification of producers according to the Lotka index.
Number of Authors (n)Number of Papers(%)Lotka’s Productivity Index (log(n))Classification
1053178.580.00Transient producers
139210.370.30Intermediate producers
5534.100.48
2641.940.60
1951.420.70
1360.970.78
770.520.85
580.370.90
590.370.95
6100.451.00Large producers
2110.151.04
2120.151.08
2130.151.11
1140.071.15
2150.151.18
2180.151.26
1400.071.60
Table 3. Cumulative citations for the three family medicine journals published in Mexico from 2014 to 2023.
Table 3. Cumulative citations for the three family medicine journals published in Mexico from 2014 to 2023.
Atención FamiliarArchivos en Medicina FamiliarRevista Mexicana de Medicina Familiar
YearPapers (n)Citations (n)Papers (n)Citations (n)Papers (n)Citations (n)
2014222981536150
20152653850224
2016336741278213
20173137523138163
20183529012881315
201932199612103
20202876823822
20213759138164
2022372722141621
2023361374200
Total317253715340115775
Table 4. Characteristics of the original articles (n = 363).
Table 4. Characteristics of the original articles (n = 363).
CharacteristicFrequency%
Study Design
Cross-sectional28879.33
Quasi-experimental236.34
Case-control164.41
Qualitative143.85
Cohort92.48
Validation71.93
Clinical trial30.83
Mixed30.83
Study Center
Single-center32388.98
Multicenter318.54
Not specified92.48
Sample Size Calculation
Yes15342.15
Not specified10829.75
No6417.63
Entire population3810.47
Sample Size
2–10013838.01
101–20010328.37
>20011932.78
Not specified30.82
Type of Sampling
Non-probabilistic16545.45
Not specified15442.42
Probabilistic4412.12
Table 5. Average and range of the articles analyzed using checklists.
Table 5. Average and range of the articles analyzed using checklists.
Study DesignnScore ChecklistRange
Cross-sectional244.2/102–7
Quasi-experimental44/93–5
Case-control13/103
Qualitative44.75/102–7
Cohort34.33/113–6
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mendiola-Pastrana, I.R.; López-Ortiz, E.; Hernández-López, R.G.; Romero-Henríquez, L.F.; Dávila-Mendoza, R.; López-Ortiz, G. Analysis of Scientific Production in Family Medicine in Mexico. Publications 2024, 12, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040031

AMA Style

Mendiola-Pastrana IR, López-Ortiz E, Hernández-López RG, Romero-Henríquez LF, Dávila-Mendoza R, López-Ortiz G. Analysis of Scientific Production in Family Medicine in Mexico. Publications. 2024; 12(4):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mendiola-Pastrana, Indira R., Eduardo López-Ortiz, Rubí G. Hernández-López, Luisa F. Romero-Henríquez, Rocío Dávila-Mendoza, and Geovani López-Ortiz. 2024. "Analysis of Scientific Production in Family Medicine in Mexico" Publications 12, no. 4: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040031

APA Style

Mendiola-Pastrana, I. R., López-Ortiz, E., Hernández-López, R. G., Romero-Henríquez, L. F., Dávila-Mendoza, R., & López-Ortiz, G. (2024). Analysis of Scientific Production in Family Medicine in Mexico. Publications, 12(4), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040031

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop