The field of psychiatry has seen significant progress in recent years due to worldwide contributions. National productivity, however, in the field of psychiatry is still unclear. In our study, we investigated contributions of individual nations to the field of psychiatry. The Web of Science was used to perform a search from 2011 to 2015 on the subject category “psychiatry”. The total number of articles, citations and the per capita numbers were obtained to analyze the contributions of different countries. In psychiatry journals from 2011 to 2015, 84,760 articles were published worldwide. The most productive world areas were North America, East Asia, Europe and Oceania. The percentage of articles published in high-income countries was 87.77%, middle-income countries published 12.07%, and lower-income published 0.16%. Most articles were published by the United States (32.68%); the United Kingdom was next (8.59%), which was followed by Germany (6.77%), Australia (5.87%), and Canada (4.9%). The country with the highest number of citations (243,394) was the United States. A positive correlation was found between the population/GDP and the number of publications (P < 0.01). Australia ranked the highest when normalized to population size, and the Netherlands and Norway were next. The Netherlands ranked highest, followed by Israel and Australia when adjusted for GDP. The authorship of most of the psychiatry articles was from high-income countries and few papers came from low-income countries. The most productive country was the United States. However, when normalized to population size and GDP, some European and Oceania countries were most productive.

Background: The underrepresentation of scholarly works from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in academic literature is a documented concern, attributed partly to editorial biases. This trend, prevalent across various disciplines, has been less explored in the context of medical ethics journals. This study aimed to examine the composition of editorial board members (EBM) in high-impact medical ethics journals and to evaluate the extent of international diversity within these editorial teams. Methods: This study incorporated an analysis of 16 high-impact medical ethics journals. Information regarding the EBM of these journals was systematically gathered and categorized based on the World Bank’s country income classifications. An in-depth examination of the editorial board compositions was then conducted. Results: The study identified 669 EBM across the selected journals. A predominant 89.84% (601) of these members were from high-income countries (HICs), with upper-middle-income countries contributing 7.47% (50) and lower-middle-income countries 2.69% (18). No EBM were associated with low-income countries. A regional breakdown indicated that North America was the most represented area, accounting for 48.88% (327), followed by Europe & Central Asia (27.50%, 184), East Asia & Pacific (13.45%, 90), Latin America & Caribbean (4.63%, 31), Sub-Saharan Africa (4.19%, 28), Middle East & North Africa (0.75%, 5), and South Asia (0.60%, 4). In total, these EBMs hailed from 46 different countries, with the United States representing the largest proportion (43.80%, 293), followed by the United Kingdom (13.15%, 88), Australia (7.92%, 53), Germany (6.73%, 45), and Canada (5.08%, 34). Conclusions: There is a significant lack of international representation within the EBM of high-impact medical ethics journals. The majority of editors in this field are affiliated with HICs, leading to a severe underrepresentation of LMICs within the editorial boards.

Metabolic Score for Visceral Fat (METS-VF) is commonly used as an indicator for assessing visceral fat metabolism. However, the relationship between METS-VF, Bone Mineral Density (BMD), and osteoporosis remains unclear in the American population. This study utilized cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), including participants aged 20 years and older, from the survey cycles conducted between 2005 and 2010, 2013–2014, and 2017–2018. Multivariable weighted linear regression and logistic regression analyses were first applied to investigate the associations between the METS-VF, femoral BMD, and osteoporosis. In addition, subgroup interaction analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of these associations. To address potential non-linear relationships, restricted cubic spline regression was employed. All statistical analyses were conducted using R software version 4.3.3. P values were two-tailed, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. After adjusting for all covariates, the positive correlations between METS-VF and BMD measurements at all sites remained statistically significant (p < 0.001 & p for trend < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that, after adjusting for covariates related to osteoporosis, each one-unit increase in METS-VF was associated with a 63.1% reduction in the risk of developing osteoporosis. Moreover, the direction of the associations between METS-VF and both BMD and osteoporosis remained consistent across all subgroups, while restricted cubic spline (RCS) analyses suggested nonlinear relationships. The 5.82–7.35 METS-VF range yielded a mean 51.9% osteoporosis risk reduction (sustained ≥ 30% peak efficacy in 66.7% of participants). METS-VF demonstrated a nonlinear positive association with BMD and a nonlinear inverse relationship with osteoporosis risk. Future studies should establish optimal biological thresholds of METS-VF for skeletal health. Not applicable.

The widespread absence of papers originating in low and middle income economies (LAMIE) across various scholarly disciplines has been widely acknowledged. One potential reason for this could be editorial biases against submissions from LAMIE. Although this bias has been observed in different academic areas, its extent in spinal research remains largely uninvestigated. This research endeavored to investigate the composition of editorial staff members (ESM) within major spinal journals and scrutinize the degree of international diversity represented among the ESM. We pinpointed ten major spinal journals by referencing their presence in the Journal Citation Reports of 2021. Countries of the ESM affiliated with these journals were categorized according to World Bank classifications. Following this, we conducted a thorough analysis of the ESM compositions. A total of 982 ESM from 50 countries were identified. The United States exhibited the highest representation among ESM (395, 40.22%), followed by South Korea (57, 5.80%), Switzerland (53, 5.40%). When segmented by geographical regions, North America emerged with the highest representation, constituting 43.38% of ESM at 426, trailed by Europe & Central Asia at 31.16% (306), East Asia & Pacific at 17.92% (175). The majority of ESM, amounting to 87.98%, hailed from high income economies (HIE). There was an absence of ESM representation of low income economies. The relationship regarding the quantity of ESM in each country and its population failed to demonstrate significance (p = 0.274, r = 0.281). However, a notable positive correlation emerged when exploring the connection between ESM numbers and gross domestic product (p = 0.033, r = 0.517). Major spinal journals exhibit a notable absence of international representation within their editorial boards, predominantly comprising members from HIE. This underscores a substantial underrepresentation of ESM originating from LAMIE within the sphere of spinal investigation.

Objective: The increasing use of large language models (LLMs) for manuscript preparation and content generation presents both opportunities and risks, creating an urgent need for clear guidance. While many journals have introduced directives, their consistency and scope remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and nature of LLM use guidance in emergency medicine publishing. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of emergency medicine journals, reviewing websites for directives on LLM use by authors, and regarding the use of AI in the peer review process by editors and reviewers. Data were extracted on guidance existence, stakeholder requirements, publisher adoption, and association with journal metrics. Results: Of the 56 journals, 38 (68%) provided a directive on LLM use. While all 38 (100%) permitted LLM use for writing, guidance for authors on image generation was conflicting: 32% permitted it, while 40% explicitly prohibited it. Directives for editors were similarly contradictory, with 24% prohibiting LLM use and one (3%) permitting it. For reviewers, 47% prohibited LLM use, while one (3%) permitted it. Publisher-driven fragmentation was profound, with adoption rates varying from 100% to 18%. Notably, no statistically significant differences were detected between the presence of a directive and journal quality metrics ( P > .05). Conclusions: Emergency medicine publishing demonstrates significant variations and conflicting guidance in its governance of LLM use. Existing directives present contradictory rules for authors, editors, and reviewers on key issues like image generation and use in peer review. To close this critical guidance gap, a comprehensive, standardized framework is urgently needed to resolve these conflicts and foster the responsible integration of digital technologies into scholarly publishing.

The care of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) continues to be a notable clinical challenge. The efficacy and safety of stem cell therapies versus conventional treatments for DFU are debated. Cross-sectional analyses of meta-analyses enable structured comparisons of overlapping reviews, facilitate the identification of inconsistencies, and support evidence-based decision-making when conclusions differ. This study aimed to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of existing meta-analyses comparing stem cell and conventional treatments for DFU outcomes to identify the highest-quality available evidence and clarify areas of consistency and discrepancy. We systematically searched for meta-analyses that investigated stem cell therapies versus conventional treatments for DFU. The complete electronic search strategies for all databases are provided in accordance with PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Methodological quality was assessed using the Oxford Levels of Evidence and original AMSTAR instrument. Data abstraction and quality evaluation were performed independently, and the Jadad decision algorithm was applied to determine the meta-analysis providing the most methodologically robust evidence. Nine meta-analyses were included in this study. Five were categorized as Level II evidence, while the remaining four were classified as Level III evidence. The AMSTAR scores ranged from 7 to 10 (median 9). The Jadad algorithm identified the most robust meta-analysis consistently showing improved ulcer healing rates (P < 0.0001), greater pain-free walking distance (P < 0.00001), lower amputation rates (P < 0.0001) compared with conventional treatments. Furthermore, the incidence of adverse events in the stem cell groups was lower compared to conventional treatments (P < 0.001). The study indicated that stem cell therapy appeared to be a promising therapeutic option for improving clinical outcomes. However, conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to overlapping primary studies, heterogeneity, and the secondary nature of this cross-sectional evaluation. Moreover, no clear evidence of increased serious adverse events was identified in the highest-quality meta-analysis.