Objective: This paper aims to evaluate the quality of scientific production in family medicine in Mexico and identify gaps in the development of research in this medical discipline. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed original articles, reviews, case reports, and editorials published from Mexico,
[...] Read more.
Objective: This paper aims to evaluate the quality of scientific production in family medicine in Mexico and identify gaps in the development of research in this medical discipline. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed original articles, reviews, case reports, and editorials published from Mexico, from the year 2014 to 2023, in the three family medicine journals edited in the country. Several bibliometric indicators were evaluated. Attributes that confer validity in original articles were analyzed, and through random sampling, 10% were selected to determine their quality using checklists. Results: A total of 627 articles were analyzed; among these, 57.89% were original, 19.61% reviews, 17.06% editorials, and 5.42% case reports. Our analysis revealed significant disparities in research activity across regions in Mexico. Productivity, transience, and isolation indices were 2.79, 78.58%, and 54.05%, respectively, while the Price index was 42.74%. A small percentage of articles received funding and followed guidelines for medical research reporting (0.47% and 0.63%, respectively). The analysis of validity attributes in original articles revealed that 92.83% were observational, 88.98% were unicentric, in 47.38%, no sample size calculation was performed or specified, while in 12.12%, sampling was probabilistic. In the evaluation of the original articles, more than 60% showed limitations that compromised their quality. Conclusions: The number of published articles, along with their bibliometric, validity, and quality attributes, reflect significant gaps in the generation and dissemination of knowledge in family medicine in Mexico. This shows a transgenerational problem, identified in many countries, where the advancement of family medicine as a specialty is limited by low research productivity and methodological weaknesses in reporting.
Full article