Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements
Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Ali Montazeri [verfasserIn] Samira Mohammadi [verfasserIn] Parisa M.Hesari [verfasserIn] Marjan Ghaemi [verfasserIn] Hedyeh Riazi [verfasserIn] Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2023 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Systematic Reviews - BMC, 2012, 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:12 ; year:2023 ; number:1 ; pages:10 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ099153475 |
---|
LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | DOAJ099153475 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20240414014804.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 240414s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ099153475 | ||
035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 0 | |a Ali Montazeri |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements |
264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
520 | |a Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Reporting guideline | |
650 | 4 | |a Checklist | |
650 | 4 | |a BIBLIO | |
650 | 4 | |a Bibliometric reviews | |
650 | 4 | |a Bibliography | |
653 | 0 | |a Medicine | |
653 | 0 | |a R | |
700 | 0 | |a Samira Mohammadi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 0 | |a Parisa M.Hesari |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 0 | |a Marjan Ghaemi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 0 | |a Hedyeh Riazi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 0 | |a Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Systematic Reviews |d BMC, 2012 |g 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 |w (DE-627)718627210 |w (DE-600)2662257-9 |x 20464053 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:12 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g pages:10 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 12 |j 2023 |e 1 |h 10 |
author_variant |
a m am s m sm p m pm m g mg h r hr z s m zsm |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:20464053:2023----::rlmnrgieieorprigiloerceiwoteimdclieau |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2023 |
publishDate |
2023 |
allfields |
10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099153475 (DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Ali Montazeri verfasserin aut Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. Reporting guideline Checklist BIBLIO Bibliometric reviews Bibliography Medicine R Samira Mohammadi verfasserin aut Parisa M.Hesari verfasserin aut Marjan Ghaemi verfasserin aut Hedyeh Riazi verfasserin aut Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh verfasserin aut In Systematic Reviews BMC, 2012 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 (DE-627)718627210 (DE-600)2662257-9 20464053 nnns volume:12 year:2023 number:1 pages:10 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2023 1 10 |
spelling |
10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099153475 (DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Ali Montazeri verfasserin aut Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. Reporting guideline Checklist BIBLIO Bibliometric reviews Bibliography Medicine R Samira Mohammadi verfasserin aut Parisa M.Hesari verfasserin aut Marjan Ghaemi verfasserin aut Hedyeh Riazi verfasserin aut Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh verfasserin aut In Systematic Reviews BMC, 2012 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 (DE-627)718627210 (DE-600)2662257-9 20464053 nnns volume:12 year:2023 number:1 pages:10 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2023 1 10 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099153475 (DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Ali Montazeri verfasserin aut Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. Reporting guideline Checklist BIBLIO Bibliometric reviews Bibliography Medicine R Samira Mohammadi verfasserin aut Parisa M.Hesari verfasserin aut Marjan Ghaemi verfasserin aut Hedyeh Riazi verfasserin aut Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh verfasserin aut In Systematic Reviews BMC, 2012 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 (DE-627)718627210 (DE-600)2662257-9 20464053 nnns volume:12 year:2023 number:1 pages:10 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2023 1 10 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099153475 (DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Ali Montazeri verfasserin aut Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. Reporting guideline Checklist BIBLIO Bibliometric reviews Bibliography Medicine R Samira Mohammadi verfasserin aut Parisa M.Hesari verfasserin aut Marjan Ghaemi verfasserin aut Hedyeh Riazi verfasserin aut Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh verfasserin aut In Systematic Reviews BMC, 2012 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 (DE-627)718627210 (DE-600)2662257-9 20464053 nnns volume:12 year:2023 number:1 pages:10 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2023 1 10 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099153475 (DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Ali Montazeri verfasserin aut Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. Reporting guideline Checklist BIBLIO Bibliometric reviews Bibliography Medicine R Samira Mohammadi verfasserin aut Parisa M.Hesari verfasserin aut Marjan Ghaemi verfasserin aut Hedyeh Riazi verfasserin aut Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh verfasserin aut In Systematic Reviews BMC, 2012 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 (DE-627)718627210 (DE-600)2662257-9 20464053 nnns volume:12 year:2023 number:1 pages:10 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2023 1 10 |
language |
English |
source |
In Systematic Reviews 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 volume:12 year:2023 number:1 pages:10 |
sourceStr |
In Systematic Reviews 12(2023), 1, Seite 10 volume:12 year:2023 number:1 pages:10 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Reporting guideline Checklist BIBLIO Bibliometric reviews Bibliography Medicine R |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
Systematic Reviews |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Ali Montazeri @@aut@@ Samira Mohammadi @@aut@@ Parisa M.Hesari @@aut@@ Marjan Ghaemi @@aut@@ Hedyeh Riazi @@aut@@ Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
718627210 |
id |
DOAJ099153475 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ099153475</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414014804.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240414s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ099153475</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ali Montazeri</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Reporting guideline</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Checklist</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">BIBLIO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bibliometric reviews</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bibliography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Samira Mohammadi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Parisa M.Hesari</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marjan Ghaemi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hedyeh Riazi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Systematic Reviews</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2023), 1, Seite 10</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718627210</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2662257-9</subfield><subfield code="x">20464053</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Ali Montazeri |
spellingShingle |
Ali Montazeri misc Reporting guideline misc Checklist misc BIBLIO misc Bibliometric reviews misc Bibliography misc Medicine misc R Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements |
authorStr |
Ali Montazeri |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)718627210 |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut |
collection |
DOAJ |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
20464053 |
topic_title |
Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements Reporting guideline Checklist BIBLIO Bibliometric reviews Bibliography |
topic |
misc Reporting guideline misc Checklist misc BIBLIO misc Bibliometric reviews misc Bibliography misc Medicine misc R |
topic_unstemmed |
misc Reporting guideline misc Checklist misc BIBLIO misc Bibliometric reviews misc Bibliography misc Medicine misc R |
topic_browse |
misc Reporting guideline misc Checklist misc BIBLIO misc Bibliometric reviews misc Bibliography misc Medicine misc R |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Systematic Reviews |
hierarchy_parent_id |
718627210 |
hierarchy_top_title |
Systematic Reviews |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)718627210 (DE-600)2662257-9 |
title |
Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ099153475 (DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 |
title_full |
Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements |
author_sort |
Ali Montazeri |
journal |
Systematic Reviews |
journalStr |
Systematic Reviews |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2023 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
container_start_page |
10 |
author_browse |
Ali Montazeri Samira Mohammadi Parisa M.Hesari Marjan Ghaemi Hedyeh Riazi Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh |
container_volume |
12 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Ali Montazeri |
doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 |
author2-role |
verfasserin |
title_sort |
preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (biblio): a minimum requirements |
title_auth |
Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements |
abstract |
Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. |
abstractGer |
Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. |
abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further. |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
1 |
title_short |
Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847 https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Samira Mohammadi Parisa M.Hesari Marjan Ghaemi Hedyeh Riazi Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh |
author2Str |
Samira Mohammadi Parisa M.Hesari Marjan Ghaemi Hedyeh Riazi Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh |
ppnlink |
718627210 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 |
up_date |
2024-07-03T21:18:26.514Z |
_version_ |
1803594242736521216 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ099153475</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414014804.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240414s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ099153475</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ali Montazeri</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Methods The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. Results The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. Conclusions The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Reporting guideline</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Checklist</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">BIBLIO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bibliometric reviews</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bibliography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Samira Mohammadi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Parisa M.Hesari</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marjan Ghaemi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hedyeh Riazi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Systematic Reviews</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2023), 1, Seite 10</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718627210</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2662257-9</subfield><subfield code="x">20464053</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1168a12abdf0418596f32686b0184847</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.3972683 |