Dataset Information

Meta-Analysis of Correlations between Altmetric Attention Score and Citations in Health Sciences.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In recent years, several controversial reports of the correlation between altmetric score and citations have been published (range: -0.2 to 0.8). We conducted a meta-analysis to provide an in-depth statistical analysis of the correlation between altmetric score and number of citations in the field of health sciences.

Methods

Three online databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) were systematically searched, without language restrictions, from the earliest publication date available through February 29, 2020, using the keywords "altmetric," "citation," and "correlation." Grey literature was also searched via WorldCat, Open Grey, and Google Scholar (first 100 hits only). All studies in the field of health sciences that reported on this correlation were included. Effect sizes were calculated using Fisher's z transformation of correlations. Subgroup analyses based on citation source and sampling methods were performed.

Results

From 27 included articles, 8 articles comprise several independent studies. The total sample size was 9,943 articles comprised of 35 studies. The overall pooled effect size was 0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.26). Bivariate partial prediction of interaction between effect size, citation source, and sampling method showed a greater effect size with Web of Science compared with Scopus and Dimensions. Egger's regression showed a marginally nonsignificant publication bias (p = 0.055), and trim-and-fill analysis estimated one missing study in this meta-analysis.

Conclusion

In health sciences, currently altmetric score has a positive but weak correlation with number of citations (pooled correlation = 0.19, 95% C.I 0.12 to 0.25). We emphasize on future examinations to assess changes of correlation pattern between altmetric score and citations over time.

SUBMITTER: Kolahi J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8046527 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Given the increasing interest and potential use of social media for the promotion of orthopedic literature, there is a need to better understand Altmetrics. Purposes: We sought to determine the relationship between the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and the number of citations for articles on total joint arthroplasty (TJA) published in orthopedics journals. We also sought to determine the predictors of greater social media attention for these articles. Methods: Articles on TJA published in Bone and Joint Journal (BJJ), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research (CORR), Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Knee Surgery, Hip International, and Acta Orthopaedica in 2016 were extracted (n = 498). One-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni corrections was used to compare AAS and citations across journals. Multivariate regressions were used to determine predictors of social media attention and number of citations. Results: The mean AAS and number of citations were 7.5 (range: 0-289) and 16.7 (range: 0-156), respectively. Significant between-group effects were observed according to journal for AAS and number of citations. Publishing an article in JBJS was the strongest predictor of higher number of citations. Publishing an article in BJJ was the only independent predictor of higher AAS, while publishing an article in JBJS or CORR trended toward statistical significance. A higher AAS was a significant predictor of a higher number of citations. Number of citations and number of study references were positive predictors of greater social media attention on Twitter and Facebook. Conclusions: In articles on TJA published in 7 journals in 2016, a higher AAS was a associated with a higher number of citations. Various bibliometric characteristics were found to be significantly associated with greater social media attention; the most common influences were number of citations and number of references. Researchers in orthopedics can use this information when considering how to assess the impact of their work.

Project description:The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retracted articles and assess also the attention they receive post-retraction versus pre-retraction. We downloaded all records of retracted literature maintained by the Retraction Watch Database and originally published between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. For all 3,008 retracted articles with a separate DOI for the original and its retraction, we downloaded the respective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) (from Altmetric) and citation count (from Crossref), for the original article and its retraction notice on June 6, 2018. We also compared the AAS of a random sample of 572 retracted full journal articles available on PubMed to that of unretracted full articles matched from the same issue and journal. 1,687 (56.1%) of retracted research articles received some amount of Altmetric attention, and 165 (5.5%) were even considered popular (AAS>20). 31 (1.0%) of 2,953 with a record on Crossref received >100 citations by June 6, 2018. Popular articles received substantially more attention than their retraction, even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction (Median difference, 29; 95% CI, 17-61). Unreliable results were the most frequent reason for retraction of popular articles (32; 19%), while fake peer review was the most common reason (421; 15%) for the retraction of other articles. In comparison to matched articles, retracted articles tended to receive more Altmetric attention (23/31 matched groups; P-value, 0.01), even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction. Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention.

Project description:BackgroundThe US News and World Report reputation score correlates strongly with overall rank in adult and pediatric hospital rankings. Social media affects how information is disseminated to physicians and is used by hospitals as a marketing tool to recruit patients. It is unclear whether the reputation score for adult and children's hospitals relates to social media presence.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to analyze the association between a hospital's social media metrics and the US News 2017-2018 Best Hospital Rankings for adult and children's hospitals.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the reputation score, total score, and social media metrics (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) of hospitals who received at least one subspecialty ranking in the 2017-2018 US News publicly available annual rankings. Regression analysis was employed to analyze the partial correlation coefficients between social media metrics and a hospital's total points (ie, rank) and reputation score for both adult and children's hospitals while controlling for the bed size and time on Twitter.ResultsWe observed significant correlations for children's hospitals' reputation score and total points with the number of Twitter followers (total points: r=.465, P<.001; reputation: r=.524, P<.001) and Facebook followers (total points: r=.392, P=.002; reputation: r=.518, P<.001). Significant correlations for the adult hospitals reputation score were found with the number of Twitter followers (r=.848, P<.001), number of tweets (r=.535, P<.001), Klout score (r=.242, P=.02), and Facebook followers (r=.743, P<.001). In addition, significant correlations for adult hospitals total points were found with Twitter followers (r=.548, P<.001), number of tweets (r=.358, P<.001), Klout score (r=.203, P=.05), Facebook followers (r=.500, P<.001), and Instagram followers (r=.692, P<.001).ConclusionsA statistically significant correlation exists between multiple social media metrics and both a hospital's reputation score and total points (ie, overall rank). This association may indicate that a hospital's reputation may be influenced by its social media presence or that the reputation or rank of a hospital drives social media followers.