Dataset Information

Standing on the shoulders of Giants: a citation analysis of the paediatric congenital heart disease literature.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The citation history of a published article reflects its impact on the literature over time. We conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the most cited papers on CHD in children.

Methods

One-hundred and ninety journals listed in Journal Citation Reports were accessed via Web of Science. Publications with 250 or more citations were identified from Science Citation Index Expanded (1900-2020), and those relating to structural CHD in children were reviewed. Articles were ranked by citation count and the 100 most cited were analysed.

Results

The number of citations ranged from 2522 to 309 (median 431, IQR 356-518), with 35 published since 2000. All were written in English, most originated from the United States (74%), and were published in cardiovascular journals, with Circulation (28%) the most frequent. There were 86 original research articles, including 50 case series, 14 cohort studies, and 10 clinical trials. The most cited paper was by Hoffman JI and Kaplan S on the incidence of CHD. Thirteen authors had 4 or more publications in the top 100, all of whom had worked in Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, or Dallas, and the most prolific author was Newburger JW (9 articles).

Conclusions

Citation analysis provides a historical perspective on scientific progress by assessing the impact of individual articles. Our study highlights the dominant position of US-based researchers and journals in this field. Most of the highly cited articles remain case series, with few randomised controlled trials in CHD appearing in recent years.

SUBMITTER: Sew DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7612155 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To analyze survey information regarding mentorship practices and cross-correlate the results with objective metrics of academic productivity among academic radiation oncologists at US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency training programs.An institutional review board-approved survey for the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP) was sent to 1031 radiation oncologists employed at an ACGME-accredited residency training program and administered using an international secure web application designed exclusively to support data capture for research studies. Data collected included demographics, presence of mentorship, and the nature of specific mentoring activities. Productivity metrics, including number of publications, number of citations, h-index, and date of first publication, were collected for each survey respondent from a commercially available online database, and m-index was calculated.A total of 158 academic radiation oncologists completed the survey, 96 of whom reported having an academic/scientific mentor. Faculty with a mentor had higher numbers of publications, citations, and h- and m-indices. Differences in gender and race/ethnicity were not associated with significant differences in mentorship rates, but those with a mentor were more likely to have a PhD degree and were more likely to have more time protected for research. Bivariate fit regression modeling showed a positive correlation between a mentor's h-index and their mentee's h-index (R2=0.16; P<.001). Linear regression also showed significant correlates of higher h-index, in addition to having a mentor (P=.001), included a longer career duration (P<.001) and fewer patients in treatment (P=.02).Mentorship is widely believed to be important to career development and academic productivity. These results emphasize the importance of identifying and striving to overcome potential barriers to effective mentorship.

Project description:ObjectivesEpidemiological research on the association between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer risk has some methodological challenges that give rise to different conclusions and intense debates. This raises the question about the role of selective citation and of citation bias in particular. Our aim was to investigate the occurrence and prevalence of selective citation in this field.DesignCitation analysis.SettingWeb of Science Core Collection.ParticipantsWe identified 96 publications in this network, with 4317 potential citations. For each publication, we extracted characteristics such as study conclusion and funding source. Some of these characteristics are related to the study content: study design, sample size, method of diesel exposure assessment, type of diesel technology under investigation, and whether smoking had been adjusted for.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhether a citation occurs or not, measured and analysed according to the preregistered protocol. Exploratively we analysed the association between funding source and study conclusion.ResultsMethodological content of a study was clearly related to citation, studies using more sophisticated methods were more likely to be cited. There was some evidence for citation bias: supportive publications had a higher chance of being cited than non-supportive ones, but after adjustment for study quality, this effect decreased substantially (adjusted OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.7). Explorative analyses indicated that three quarters of non-profit funded publications had a supportive study conclusion against only one quarter of the industry-funded publications.ConclusionsThere is evidence for selective citation within this field, but the evidence for citation bias was weak. It seems that factors related to the methodology had more impact on citation than the conclusion of a study. Interestingly, publications that were funded by industry were more skeptical about a causal relationship between diesel exhaust and lung cancer compared to non-profit-funded publications.