Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLópez-Muñoz, F.
dc.contributor.authorCastle, David
dc.contributor.authorShen, Winston W.
dc.contributor.authorMoreno, Raquel
dc.contributor.authorHuelves, Lorena
dc.contributor.authorPerez Nieto, Miguel Ángel
dc.contributor.authorNoriega, Concha
dc.contributor.authorRubio, G.
dc.contributor.authorMolina Martín, Juan de Dios
dc.contributor.authorÁlamo González, C
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-25T11:59:10Z
dc.date.available2018-06-25T11:59:10Z
dc.date.issued2013-06-26
dc.identifier.citationThe Australian contribution to the literature on atypical antipsychotic drugs: a bibliometric study Francisco López-Muñoz, David Castle, Winston Shen, Raquel Moreno, Lorena Huelves, Miguel Pérez-Nieto, Concha Noriega, Gabriel Rubio, Juan Molina, and Cecilio Álamo Australasian Psychiatry Vol 21, Issue 4, pp. 343 - 345 First Published June 26, 2013 First Published June 26, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856213492352es
dc.identifier.issn1440-1665
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12020/753
dc.description.abstractObjective: We performed a bibliometric study on scientific publications on atypical antipsychotic drugs (AADs) from Australia. Methods: Using the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, we chose those documents produced in Australia between 1993 and 2011, whose title included the descriptors atypic* (atypical*), antipsychotic*, second-generation antipsychotic*, clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, ziprasidone, quetiapine, sertindole, aripiprazole, paliperidone, amisulpride, zotepine, asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, perospirone and blonanserin. We applied bibliometric indicators of production as well as dispersion. Results: We identified 438 relevant publications. The most widely studied AADs were clozapine (162 documents), olanzapine (103), risperidone (77) and quetiapine (42). There was a lack of exponential growth in publications over time, indicated by non-fulfilment of Price’s Law (correlation coefficient r=0.9195 after exponential adjustment vs. r=0.9253 after linear adjustment). Publications appeared in 148 different journals, with four of the top nine journals having an impact factor greater than 3; 84 of the articles appeared in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. Conclusion: Despite Australian publications on AADs appearing in reasonably high impact journals, most were confined to a single Australian psychiatry journal and overall publications did not show exponential growth over the period studied. This might reflect, inter alia, the relative paucity of medication trials being performed in Australia.es
dc.language.isoenes
dc.publisherSage Journalses
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.titleThe Australian contribution to the literature on atypical antipsychotic drugs : A bibliometric studyes
dc.typearticlees
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/1039856213492352
dc.issue.number4es
dc.journal.titleAustralasian Psychiatryes
dc.page.initial343es
dc.page.final345es
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses
dc.subject.areaPsicologíaes
dc.subject.keywordAtypical antipsychoticses
dc.subject.keywordAustraliaes
dc.subject.keywordBibliometryes
dc.subject.keywordBipolar disorderes
dc.subject.keywordSchizophreniaes
dc.subject.unesco3201.05 Psicología Clínicaes
dc.volume.number21es


Files in this item

File/sSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional