Evidence-based editing: factors influencing the number of citations in a national journal

Purpose: Citations received by papers published within a journal serve to increase its bibliometric impact. The objective of this paper was to assess the influence of publication language, article type, number of authors, and year of publication on the citations received by papers published in Gaceta Sanitaria, a Spanish-language journal of public health. Methods: The information sources were the journal website and the Web of Knowledge, of the Institute of Scientific Information. The period analyzed was from 2007 to 2010. We included original articles, brief original articles, and reviews published within that period. We extracted manually information regarding the variables analyzed and we also differentiated among total citations and self-citations. We constructed logistic regression models to analyze the probability of a Gaceta Sanitaria paper to be cited or not, taking into account the aforementioned independent variables. We also analyzed the probability of receiving citations from non-Spanish authors. Results: Two hundred forty papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The included papers received a total of 287 citations, which became 202 when excluding self-citations. The only variable influencing the probability of being cited was the publication year. After excluding never cited papers, time since publication and review papers had the highest probabilities of being cited. Papers in English and review articles had a higher probability of citation from non-Spanish authors. Conclusions: Publication language has no influence on the citations received by a national, non-English journal. Reviews in English have the highest probability of citation from abroad. Editors should decide how to manage this information when deciding policies to raise the bibliometric impact factor of their journals.

Integrating Evidence-Based Practice in the Training Programme Bachelor’s Degree in Nursing, University Jaume I

The Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) aims to combine a form methodological process of professional experience in health with the most current information on the clinical situation. The professional novice can make better decisions despite lacking sufficient years in clinical practice. We then train the student in correct habits within the methodological process by which you can strengthen both their knowledge and their attitude and ability, allowing secure customs, where all of your work is based on PBE.

Does the scientific evidence support the advertising claims made for products containing Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium lactis? A systematic review

Background To analyse the scientific evidence that exists for the advertising claims made for two products containing Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium lactis and to conduct a comparison between the published literature and what is presented in the corporate website. Methods Systematic review, using Medline through Pubmed and Embase. We included human clinical trials that exclusively measured the effect of Lactobacillus casei or Bifidobacterium lactis on a healthy population, and where the objective was related to the health claims made for certain products in advertising. We assessed the levels of evidence and the strength of the recommendation according to the classification criteria established by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). We also assessed the outcomes of the studies published on the website that did not appear in the search. Results Of the 440 articles identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Only four (25%) of these presented a level of evidence of 1b and a recommendation grade of A, all corresponding to studies on product containing Bifidobacterium lactis, and only 12 of the 16 studies were published on the corporate website (47). Conclusions There is insufficient scientific evidence to support the health claims made for these products, especially in the case of product containing Lactobacillus casei.