[Congresses of the Spanish Association of Pediatrics: bibliometric analysis as a springboard for debate]

Congresses are periodic meetings that are required to make known and discuss advances in the various fields of medicine. Bibliometric indicators are important tools used to determine the quality of scientific publications. However, this type of study is infrequently performed in free communications of congresses.

A bibliometric study of all the free communications published in the congresses of the Spanish Association of Pediatrics over 4 years, divided in two periods (1996-1997 and 2000-2001) (n = 2677) was performed. Bibliometric indicators were classified into quantitative (productivity), qualitative (statistical accessibility) and scientific evidence.

Quantitative indicators: There were 928 free communications in 1996, 681 in 1997, 560 in 2000, and 508 in 2001. Eighty-eight percent were in poster format and 87 % were in structured format. There was a median of six authors per communication. The main subject areas were infectology, neonatology, hemato-oncology, neurology and endocrinology. Ninety-five per cent of communications were signed by hospitals with a marked contribution by hospitals in Andalusia and Madrid. Qualitative indicators: Statistical accessibility < 2 in 86 % and > 7 in 2.9 %. Scientific evidence indicators: The quality of scientific evidence was good in only 1 % and was average in 9 %, since 90 % of all the studies were descriptive (mainly clinical cases). Evidence-based methodological concepts were used in only 1.9 %. Compared with 1996-1997, in 2000-2001 there were fewer communications, more posters, and more structured communications, as well as greater statistical accessibility and better scientific evidence indicators, but these differences were not statistically significant.

Bibliometric study of the congresses of the Spanish Association of Pediatrics is a good starting point to analyze the quality of pediatric meetings and discuss possible solutions: a rigorous scientific committee with quality criteria, more analytical and/or experimental studies and fewer descriptive studies (especially clinical cases); restricting the number of authors per communication, greater collaboration with epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians, and favoring structured communications would also improve quality.