Assessment of the scientific output of Hospital de Niños Pedro de Elizalde, 2000-2011

• Published in: Archivos argentinos de pediatría Vol. 112; no. 2; pp. 147 - 152
• Main Authors: Domínguez, Paula, Chiolo, María José, Davenport, María Carolina, Di Lalla, Sandra, Martins, Andrea, Ferrero, Fernando
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Argentina 01-04-2014
• Subjects: Biomedical Research; Child; Hospitals, Pediatric; Humans; Publishing - statistics & numerical data; Time Factors
• ISSN: 0325-0075; 1668-3501
• DOI: 10.5546/aap.2014.eng.147

Monitoring article submissions and publications developed by an institution is a suitable measure to assess its scientific output.
To estimate the proportion of research projects that were completed and had results submitted/published by a pediatric hospital; to describe research project design and characteristics; to outline limitations on research development or dissemination.
Descriptive and analytical study including scientific studies approved to be developed between 2000 and 2011. Each investigator was contacted and asked to participate in a survey on research development, result dissemination and possible reasons for not completing or disseminating a study.
The survey was completed by the authors of 197 projects (60.9% completed, 16.2% ongoing, 12.7% cancelled, and 10.2% put off). Drug trials were most likely not to be completed. Of all completed projects (n = 120), 45.8% were clinical research studies, 43.3% were epidemiological studies, and 10% were related to health services. When analyzed by design, 77.5% were observational studies while 22.5% were experimental ones. In terms of scope, 69.1% were restricted to the hospital, 16.6% were international multicenter studies, and 14.1% were national multicenter studies. Only 36.6% of projects received funding. Lack of time (20%) and insufficient sample size (10%) were the most commonly indicated reasons for non dissemination. A total of 78.3% of projects were presented in conferences and 37.5% were published. The presence of funding was the only independent predictor of publication.
Of all approved projects, 60.9% were completed; of them, 78.3% were presented in conferences and 37.5% were published. Drug trials were most likely not to be completed, and funded studies had more chances of being published.