The relative citation ratio: what is it and why should medical librarians care?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Surkis A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6148595 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The relative citation ratio: what is it and why should medical librarians care?
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20181001 4
Bibliometrics is becoming increasingly prominent in the world of medical libraries. The number of presentations related to research impact at the Medical Library Association (MLA) annual meeting has been increasing in past years. Medical centers have been using institutional dashboards to track clinical performance for over a decade, and more recently, these institutional dashboards have included measures of academic performance. This commentary reviews current practices and considers the role f ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5624566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite their recognized limitations, bibliometric assessments of scientific productivity have been widely adopted. We describe here an improved method to quantify the influence of a research article by making novel use of its co-citation network to field-normalize the number of citations it has received. Article citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate that is derived from performance of articles in the same field and benchmarked to a peer comparison group. The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article level and field independent and provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using journal impact factors to identify influential papers. To illustrate one application of our method, we analyzed 88,835 articles published between 2003 and 2010 and found that the National Institutes of Health awardees who authored those papers occupy relatively stable positions of influence across all disciplines. We demonstrate that the values generated by this method strongly correlate with the opinions of subject matter experts in biomedical research and suggest that the same approach should be generally applicable to articles published in all areas of science. A beta version of iCite, our web tool for calculating Relative Citation Ratios of articles listed in PubMed, is available at https://icite.od.nih.gov.
| S-EPMC5012559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited research has evaluated the relative citation ratio (RCR), a novel measure of research productivity. Accordingly, there remains a minimal understanding of its practical value relative to established metrics such as the h-index. Here, we examined correlations between the mean and weighted RCR scores and the h-index and explore the influence of academic rank, career duration, PhD acquisition, and fellowship training on these metrics.MethodsData regarding the academic rank (e.g. assistant professor, associate professor, professor, or "other"), career duration, degrees, fellowship training, and research yield were collected for 1018 academic ophthalmologists practicing in the southern United States of America. The iCite and Scopus databases were utilized to quantify research yield via calculations of mean and weighted RCR, and h-index, respectively.ResultsSignificant correlations were observed between the h-index and the mean (ρ = 0.62, P < 0.001) and weighted RCR (ρ = 0.84, P < 0.001). Advanced academic rank was associated with increased indices values. In a subset of ophthalmologists excluding members of the "other" category, career duration was moderately correlated with h-index (ρ = 0.45, P < 0.001), and weakly correlated with mean (ρ = 0.14, P < 0.001) and weighted (ρ = 0.26, P < 0.001) RCR. PhD and fellowship acquisition were associated with increased research yield.ConclusionThe findings suggest that the RCR is an effective measure of research yield, while resolving deficiencies present in the h-index. Further research remains to characterize the RCR's value relative to other established markers of research productivity.
| S-EPMC8606875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the "relative citation ratio" (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values.MethodsA retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05.ResultsA total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0.ConclusionsAcademic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.
| S-EPMC9344340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIn regard to locating clinical trials for a systematic review, limited information is available about how librarians locate clinical trials in biomedical databases, including (1) how much information researchers provide librarians to assist with the development of a comprehensive search strategy, (2) which tools librarians turn to for information about study design methodology, and (3) librarians' confidence levels in their knowledge of study design methodology. A survey was developed to explore these aspects of how a medical librarian locates clinical trials when facilitating systematic reviews for researchers.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, a 21-question survey was sent to medical librarians via several email listservs during April 2020. Respondents were limited to librarians who make the decisions on search terms for systematic reviews.ResultsResponses (n=120) indicated that librarians were often asked to search for various types of clinical trials. However, there was not a consistent method for creating search strategies that locate diverse types of clinical trials. Multiple methods were used for search strategy development, with hedges being the most popular method. In general, these librarians considered themselves to be confident in locating trials. Different resources were used to inform study types, including textbooks, articles, library guides and websites.DiscussionMedical librarians indicated that while they felt confident in their searching skills, they did not have a definitive source of information about the various types of clinical trials, and their responses demonstrated a clear need and desire for more information on study design methodology.
| S-EPMC8270353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAn innovative funding scheme for health care librarians to attend an intensive short course in teaching evidence-based practice was established in the West of England in 2016. This evaluation aims to understand the value of the scheme and the impact of the training opportunity for the librarians, establish an evidence base for continuing with the funding scheme, and inform the development of plans to build additional capacity among health care librarians to provide critical appraisal training.MethodsSeven librarians working in health care system settings were funded by the scheme between 2016 and 2018. Post-course feedback forms gathered initial views on course content and delivery, which informed the development of questions for the qualitative phase of the evaluation. All seven librarians participated in group discussions and individual interviews.ResultsThe course boosted confidence, provided valuable new skills, and positively impacted careers of the librarians through access to new opportunities. It inspired the development of new approaches to critical appraisal training. An important need was identified among the librarians for more education in teaching. Librarians funded by the scheme have successfully cascaded the training to their colleagues.ConclusionThis evaluation supports the continuation of the funding scheme to further build capacity among health care librarians to teach evidence-based practice. It suggests additional investment in this type of specialist training, as well as in education in teaching skills, would be beneficial for health care librarians. Evidence from this evaluation is informing new plans to support these professionals with the vital service they provide, which contributes to the evidence-based culture of their organizations and to patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC8485954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSocial media is increasingly used in the dissemination of medical research. Traditional measures of the impact of a paper do not account for this. Altmetrics are a measure of the dissemination of a publication via social media websites. The purpose of this study is to ascertain if the altmetric attention score of an article is a reliable measure of the impact it has in the field of critical care medicine. To this end, we investigated if a correlation exists between future citation count and altmetric attention score.MethodsThe top nine journals by impact factor in the field of critical care medicine were identified for 2014 and 2015. The 100 most cited articles from these journals were recorded to form the Scientific Impact Group, i.e. those with the greatest impact on the scientific community. The altmetric attention score was recorded for each article. The top 100 articles by altmetric attention score were also identified to form the Media Impact Group, i.e. those that generated the most online attention. Their citation counts' were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed on each group to identify a correlation between altmetric attention score and citation count.ResultsThere was a moderately positive correlation in the Scientific Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.4336 (P = 0.0001). A weakly positive correlation was found in the Media Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.3033 (P = 0.002).ConclusionsThere is a positive correlation between traditional bibliographic metrics and altmetrics in the field of critical care medicine. Highly cited papers are more likely to generate online attention. However, papers that generate a lot of online attention are less likely to have a high citation count. Therefore, altmetric attention score is not a reliable predictor of future citation count in critical care medicine.
| S-EPMC7890758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law enacted in 1986 prohibiting patient dumping (refusing or transferring patients with emergency medical conditions without appropriate stabilization), and discrimination based upon ability to pay. We evaluate hospital-level features associated with citation for EMTALA violation.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis of observational data on EMTALA enforcement (2005-2013). Regression analysis evaluates the association between facility-level features and odds of EMTALA citation by hospital-year.ResultsAmong 4916 EMTALA-obligated hospitals there were 1925 EMTALA citation events at 1413 facilities between 2005 and 2013, with 4.3% of hospitals cited per year. In adjusted analyses, increased odds of EMTALA citations were found at hospitals that were: for-profit [odds ratio (OR): 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-1.96], in metropolitan areas (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.11-1.57); that admitted a higher proportion of Medicaid patients (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.0-1.01); and were in the top quartiles of hospital size (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.10-1.99) and emergency department (ED) volume (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.14-2.12). Predicted probability of repeat EMTALA citation in the year following initial citation was 17% among for-profit and 11% among other hospital types. Among citation events for patients presenting to the same hospital's ED, there were 1.30 EMTALA citation events per million ED visits, with 1.04 at private not-for-profit, 1.47 at government-owned, and 2.46 at for-profit hospitals.ConclusionsFor-profit ownership is associated with increased odds of EMTALA citations after adjusting for other characteristics. Efforts to improve EMTALA might be considered to protect access to emergency care for vulnerable populations, particularly at large, urban, for-profit hospitals admitting high proportions of Medicaid patients.
| S-EPMC8630639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The relative citation rate (RCR) is a normalized article-level metric useful to assess the impact of research articles. The objective of this bibliometric study is to identify and analyze, in root canal disinfection, the 100 articles having the highest RCRs in the period 1990-2019, then compare them with the top 100 articles most cited. A cross-sectional study was performed, and the search strategy ((Disinfection AND root canal) AND (("1990/01/01"[Date-Publication]: "2019/12/31"[Date-Publication]))) relied on PubMed (n = 4294 documents), and article data were downloaded from the iCite database. The 100 articles with the highest RCRs and the top 100 cited were selected and evaluated in bibliometric terms. Among the 100 articles with the highest RCRs, there were no differences in the three decades for RCRs values, but there were in citations, being 2000-2009 the most cited. The USA was the predominant country (n = 30), followed by Brazil (n = 14). The most frequent study designs were reviews (n = 27) and in vitro (n = 25) and ex vivo (n = 24) studies. All subfields were well represented, although they varied over time. In 2010-2019, regenerative procedures and irrigation/disinfection techniques were predominant. Considering the RCR's top 100 articles, 76 were common with the 100 most cited articles. Using the RCR metric allowed us to identify influential articles in root canal disinfection, a research field with topics of significance that fluctuate over time. Compared to citations, RCR reduces the time from publication to detection of its importance for the readership and could be a valid alternative to citation counts.
| S-EPMC8614753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA clinical librarian is a member of the medical team in many countries. To strengthen this new job, librarians need to acquire professional skills in order to provide information services to medical staff. In this study, we aimed to explor the skills required for the presence of a clinical librarian in the treatment team.MethodsIn this study, we sonducted a qualitative study in which 15 experienced librarians were interviewed in connection with information services. Also, a treatment team was involved in this study using purposive-convenience and snowball sampling methods. The data collection tool was a semi-structured interview that continued until the data was saturated; finally the data analysis was performed using thematic analysis.ResultsOut of the total interviews, 158 primary codes and, 107 main codes were extracted in 25 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into 13 categories and four main themes, namely clinical librarian's role, professional and specialized skills, communication skills, and training programs.ConclusionThe results showed that specialized skills and training programs for the clinical librarian are defined based on his/her duties in the treatment team. We also defined the most important key skills for the clinical librarian in two categories of professional and communication skills such as specialized information search, content production, resource management, familiarity with various sources related to evidence-based medicine, teamwork, and effective communication. To acquire these skills, officials and policy-makers should develop and implement related educational programs at medical universities and colleges.
| S-EPMC8351442 | biostudies-literature