Predictive value of Altmetric score on citation rates and bibliometric impact.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Robinson DBT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7893457 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Bibliometric and Altmetric analyses highlight key publications, which have been considered to be the most influential in their field. The hypothesis was that highly cited articles would correlate positively with levels of evidence and Altmetric scores (AS) and rank. METHODS:Surgery as a search term was entered into Thomson Reuter's Web of Science database to identify all English-language full articles. The 100 most cited articles were analysed by topic, journal, author, year, institution, and AS. RESULTS:By bibliometric criteria, eligible articles numbered 286,122 and the median (range) citation number was 574 (446-5746). The most cited article (Dindo et al.) classified surgical complications by severity score (5746 citations). Annals of Surgery published most articles and received most citations (26,457). The country and year with most publications were the USA (n?=?50) and 1999 (n?=?11). By Altmetric criteria, the article with the highest AS was by Bigelow et al. (AS?=?53, hypothermia's role in cardiac surgery); Annals of Surgery published most articles, and the country and year with most publications were USA (n?=?4) and 2007 (n?=?3). Level-1-evidence articles numbered 13, but no correlation was found between evidence level and citation number (SCC 0.094, p?=?0.352) or AS (SCC?=?0.149, p?=?0.244). Median AS was 0 (0-53), and in articles published after the year 2000, AS was associated with citation number (r?=?0.461, p?=?0.001) and citation rate index (r?=?0.455, p?=?0.002). AS was not associated with journal impact factor (r?=?0.160, p?=?0.118). CONCLUSION:Bibliometric and Altmetric analyses provide important but different perspectives regarding article impact, which are unrelated to evidence level.
| S-EPMC6097753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We sought to determine the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and traditional bibliometrics in the gynecologic oncology literature. We identified the 10 most-cited gynecologic oncology articles from 5 major gynecology journals and 10 major "oncology" journals that publish on gynecologic oncology during 2014, 2016, and 2018. Article citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), as well as journal impact factor (IF) and date of Twitter account development were recorded. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to describe the relationship between AAS, tweets, IF, and citation count. While the median citation counts significantly decreased for the top-cited gynecologic oncology articles from 2014 to 2018 (p < 0.001), the corresponding median AAS continuously increased during this period (p = 0.008). For articles published in 2014 and 2018, there was a strong positive relationship between the median citation count and the median AAS (2014: r = 0.92; 2018: r = 0.97), as well as between the IF (r = 0.78 and r = 0.89, respectively); these correlations were moderate to weak in 2016 (r = 0.5 and r = 0.41, respectively). There was a continuously increasing strong positive correlation from 2014 to 2018 between journal IF and median AAS (2014: r = 0.75; 2016: r = 0.82; 2018: r = 0.92). Gynecologic oncology articles published in higher impact journals are associated with increased social media visibility and attention. Our data support the idea that early online attention scores, like the AAS, might be useful for predicting future citation counts for oncology publications in general and gynecologic oncology specifically.
| S-EPMC8138589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is interest from authors and publishers in sharing the results of their studies over the Internet in order to increase their readership. In this way, articles tend to be discussed and the impact of these articles tends to be increased. In order to measure this type of impact, a new score (named Altmetric) was created. Altmetric aims to understand the individual impact of each article through the attention attracted online. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this study was to analyze potential factors related with the publishing journal and the publishing trial that could be associated with Altmetric scores on a random sample of low back pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The secondary objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of these trials and their Altmetric scores. METHODS:We searched for all low back pain RCTs indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; www.pedro.org.au) published between 2010 and 2015. A total of 200 articles were randomly selected, and we extracted data related to the publishing trial, the publishing journal, methodological quality of the trials (measured by the 0-10 item PEDro scale), and total and individual scores of Altmetric mentioned and Altmetric reader. The study was a cross-sectional study, and multivariate regression models and descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS:A total of four variables were associated with Altmetric mentioned score: impact factor (β-coefficient=3.4 points), number of years since publication (β-coefficient=-4.9 points), number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=5.2 points), and descriptive title (β-coefficient=-29.4 points). Only one independent variable was associated with Altmetric reader score: number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=10.1 points, 95% CI 7.74-12.46). We also found that the majority of articles were published in English, with a descriptive title, and published in open access journals endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. CONCLUSIONS:Researchers should preferably select high impact factor journals for submission and use declarative or interrogative titles, as these factors are likely to increase the visibility of their studies in social media.
| S-EPMC5909054 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionCitation counts of articles have been used to measure scientific outcomes and assess suitability for grant applications. However, citation counts are not without limitations. With the rise of social media, altmetric scores may provide an alternative assessment tool.ObjectivesThe aims of the study were to assess the characteristics of highly cited articles in medical professionalism and their altmetric scores.MethodsThe Web of Science was searched for top-cited articles in medical professionalism, and the characteristics of each article were identified. The altmetric database was searched to identify report for each identified article. A model to assess the relationship between the number of citations and each of the key characteristics as well as altmetric scores was developed.ResultsNo correlations were found between the number of citations and number of years since publication (p=0.192), number of institutes (p=0.081), number of authors (p=0.270), females in authorship (p=0.150) or number of grants (p=0.384). The altmetric scores varied from 0 to 155, total=806, median=5.0, (IQR=20). Twitter (54%) and Mendeley (62%) were the most popular altmetric resources. No correlation was found between the number of citations and the altmetric scores (p=0.661). However, a correlation was found for articles published in 2007 and after (n=17, p=0.023). To further assess these variables, a model was developed using multivariate analysis; did not show significant differences across subgroups. The topics covered were learning and teaching professionalism, curriculum issues, professional and unprofessional behaviour.ConclusionsAltmetric scores of articles were significantly correlated with citations counts for articles published in 2007 and after. Highly cited articles were produced mainly by the USA, Canada and the UK. The study reflects the emerging role of social media in research dissemination. Future studies should investigate the specific features of highly cited articles and factors reinforcing distribution of research data among scholars and non-scholars.
| S-EPMC6677941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Articles cited counts are catalogued and help identify landmark papers. This study provides a citation classics of anesthesiology literature using the framework of subspecialties to provide a review of well-developed areas of research in anesthesiology.A comprehensive list of the most-cited articles in anesthesia was compiled using a bibliometric database and general search terms such as "anesthesia" as well as subspecialty-specific search terms. Queries were reviewed for relevance to anesthesiology practice, categorized by subspecialty, and ranked according to their citation counts.The database resulted in 2519 articles published between 1945 and 2008. The specialty areas most represented were chronic pain medicine (11%), pharmacology (9%), and pain sciences (9%).This citations classic allows for advances in anesthesiology and its subspecialties to be highlighted as well to provide useful manuscripts to guide patient care, direct future research, and serve as sources for future academic pursuit.
| S-EPMC3261113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis.ResultsThe mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD ± 29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD ± 4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P < 0.001). Higher numbers of citations were associated with the following characteristics: first author from the United States (36.5 citations), an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms (31.8 citations), type of intervention classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening (34.7 citations) and having an international collaboration (32.1 citations). The JIF alone explained more than half of the variation in citations (R(2) = 0.59) in univariate analysis. Adjusting for both JIF and type of intervention increased the R2 value to 0.81. Fourteen percent of reviews published in the top quartile of JIFs (? 5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (? 2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations.ConclusionsThe JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC3847500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:A reliable screening tool that could contribute to the identification of women with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage would be of great clinical significance. Objectives:The aim of this study was to examine the added predictive value of a bleeding assessment tool for postpartum hemorrhage exceeding 1000 mL. Patients/Methods:Prospective two-center cohort study among 1147 pregnant women visiting the outpatient clinic or the maternity ward who completed a bleeding assessment tool prior to birth. The condensed MCMDM-1VWD bleeding assessment tool was adjusted to a questionnaire that could be used as a self-assessment bleeding tool. A score of ?4 was considered to be abnormal. Results:In the 1147 pregnant women in our cohort, bleeding scores ranged from -3 to 13, with a median of 1 (IQR -1 to 3); 197 (17%) women developed postpartum hemorrhage. Among women with a history of postpartum hemorrhage 29% developed postpartum hemorrhage. Among 147 women with an abnormal bleeding score (?4), 27 (18%) developed postpartum hemorrhage, whereas the remaining 170 cases of postpartum hemorrhage had a normal bleeding score. Despite the high incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, the ability of the bleeding score to predict postpartum hemorrhage was poor: area under receiver operating curve 0.53 (95% CI 0.49-0.58) for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) ?1000 mL. Conclusions:A history of significant postpartum hemorrhage was associated with an increased risk of subsequent postpartum hemorrhage. However, screening with a bleeding assessment tool did not help to discriminate women who will develop postpartum hemorrhage from women who will not.
| S-EPMC6462748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To aim of the study was describe the growth of publications on genetic myopia and understand the current research landscape through the analysis of citation networks, as well as determining the different research areas and the most cited publications. The Web of Science database was used to perform the publication search, looking for the terms "genetic*" AND "myopia" within the period between 2009 and October 2020. The CitNetExplorer and CiteSpace software were then used to conduct the publication analysis. To obtain the graphics, the VOSviewer software was used. A total of 721 publications were found with 2999 citations generated within the network. The year 2019 was singled out as a "key year", taking into account the number of publications that emerged in that year and given that in 2019, 200 loci associated with refractive errors and myopia were found, which is considered to be great progress. The most widely cited publication was "Genome-wide meta-analyses of multiancestry cohorts identify multiple new susceptibility loci for refractive error and myopia", an article by Verhoeven et al., which was published in 2013. By using the clustering function, we were able to establish three groups that encompassed the different research areas within this field: heritability rate of myopia and its possible association with environmental factors, retinal syndromes associated with myopia and the genetic factors that control and influence axial growth of the eye. The citation network offers a comprehensive and objective analysis of the main papers that address genetic myopia.
| S-EPMC8003911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAcute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered emergency surgical conditions. An understanding of the most highly cited research works in this field is key to good evidence based clinical practice.AimsTo perform a bibliometric analysis on the 100 most frequently cited articles in the field of acute appendicitis.MethodsThe database of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Expanded citation index was searched to identify the 100 most frequently cited articles in the field of acute appendicitis. The web of science expanded citation index tracks article citations made since 1946.ResultsThe top 100 most frequently cited articles were selected for analysis in this series. The most frequently cited article was cited 649 times and the least cited three article 93 times. The average number of citations per article was 167.74. The top 100 cited articles originated from 17 countries. Over half of the papers originated from the USA. Fifty-one of the papers concentrated on diagnostics of acute appendicitis. Thirty-six papers looked at the treatment of acute appendicitis with 30 of these dealing with the surgical management of the disease. There were 6 studies at level 1a, 20 studies at level 1b and 43,5,17 and 9 studies at levels 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.ConclusionsBibliometric analysis of the citation classics in a given field can provide interesting insights into the relationship between the quality of research outputs and clinical practice. The study of acute appendicitis remains an active field of research with a growing body of higher quality evidence underpinning our clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5470447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is several years since national research evaluation systems around the globe started making use of quantitative indicators to measure the performance of researchers. Nevertheless, the effects on these systems on the behavior of the evaluated researchers are still largely unknown. For investigating this topic, we propose a new inwardness indicator able to gauge the degree of scientific self-referentiality of a country. Inwardness is defined as the proportion of citations coming from the country over the total number of citations gathered by the country. A comparative analysis of the trends for the G10 countries in the years 2000-2016 reveals a net increase of the Italian inwardness. Italy became, both globally and for a large majority of the research fields, the country with the highest inwardness and the lowest rate of international collaborations. The change in the Italian trend occurs in the years following the introduction in 2011 of national regulations in which key passages of professional careers are governed by bibliometric indicators. A most likely explanation of the peculiar Italian trend is a generalized strategic use of citations in the Italian scientific community, both in the form of strategic author self-citations and of citation clubs. We argue that the Italian case offers crucial insights on the constitutive effects of evaluation systems. As such, it could become a paradigmatic case in the debate about the use of indicators in science-policy contexts.
| S-EPMC6739054 | biostudies-literature