{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03976801988400994, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0463960231980116, 'mean_word_length': 5.131979695431472, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Decline in research publications from the United Kingdom in anaesthesia journals from 1997 to 2006

We undertook this survey to identify the trend in the published output of original research in anaesthesia emanating from the United Kingdom (UK) in a 10‐year period from 1997 to 2006, inclusive. We examined seven major anaesthetic journals for each of the 10 years, and four other specialist journals for the years 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2006. We included papers on experimental research, randomised controlled clinical trials, large observational studies and case series, formal equipment and apparatus assessments, but we excluded editorials, comments, reviews including systematic reviews, special articles, small case series and case reports, questionnaire surveys of clinical practice and correspondence. We found a highly significant reduction in published research output from the UK in the period under study (% change per year; −5.7 (95% CI −7.4 to −4.0), a trend which was significantly different (p < 0.001) from the trend of changes in research publications worldwide (−1.0% change per year; 95% CI −1.7 to 0.0). We discuss the implications of these findings for UK anaesthesia research strategy.