Examining the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and citation count in the gynecologic oncology literature: Does it have an impact?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chi AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8138589 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9837400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bibliometric and Altmetric analyses provide different perspectives regarding research impact. This study aimed to determine whether Altmetric score was associated with citation rate independent of established bibliometrics. Citations related to a previous cohort of 100 most cited articles in surgery were collected and a 3-year interval citation gain calculated. Citation count, citation rate index, Altmetric score, 5-year impact factor, and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels were used to estimate citation rate prospect. The median interval citation gain was 161 (i.q.r. 83-281); 74 and 62 articles had an increase in citation rate index (median increase 2.8 (i.q.r. -0.1 to 7.7)) and Altmetric score (median increase 3 (0-4)) respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed that citation rate index (area under the curve (AUC) 0.86, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 0.93; P < 0.001) and Altmetric score (AUC 0.65, 0.55 to 0.76; P = 0.008) were associated with higher interval citation gain. An Altmetric score critical threshold of 2 or more was associated with a better interval citation gain when dichotomized at the interval citation gain median (odds ratio (OR) 4.94, 95 per cent c.i. 1.99 to 12.26; P = 0.001) or upper quartile (OR 4.13, 1.60 to 10.66; P = 0.003). Multivariable analysis revealed only citation rate index to be independently associated with interval citation gain when dichotomized at the median (OR 18.22, 6.70 to 49.55; P < 0.001) or upper quartile (OR 19.30, 4.23 to 88.15; P < 0.001). Citation rate index and Altmetric score appear to be important predictors of interval citation gain, and better at predicting future citations than the historical and established impact factor and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine quality descriptors.
| S-EPMC7893457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDifferent metrics exist to evaluate the impact of a paper. Traditionally, scientific citations are leading, but nowadays new, internet-based, metrics like downloads or Altmetric Attention Score receive increasing attention. We hypothesised a gap between these metrics, reflected by a divergence between scientific and clinical appreciation of anaesthesia literature.MethodsWe collected the top 100 most cited and the top 100 most downloaded articles in Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (AAS) and Anesthesia & Analgesia (A&A) published between 2014 and 2018. We analysed the relationship between the average number of citations per year, downloads per year and Altmetric Attention Score.ResultsFor both AAS and A&A, a significant correlation between the 100 most cited articles and their downloads (r = .573 and .603, respectively, P < .001) was found. However, only a poor correlation with Altmetric Attention Score was determined. For the 100 most downloaded articles, download frequency did not correlate with their number of citations (r = .035 and .139 respectively), but did correlate significantly with the Altmetric Attention Score (r = .458 and .354, P < .001).ConclusionHighly cited articles are downloaded more frequently. The most downloaded articles, however, did not receive more citations. In contrast to the most cited articles, more frequently downloaded papers had a higher Altmetric Attention Score. Thus, a 'trending' anaesthesia paper is not a prerequisite for scientific appreciation, reflecting a gap between clinical and scientific appreciation of literature.
| S-EPMC7317916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine if the origin of article published in Gynecologic Oncology ("Journal") is correlated with quality of the article when measured per US institution and per country, using an index of citation (IOC) metric as a stand-in for article quality.MethodsPubMed was used to query the Journal from 2005 to 2020. Articles not deemed original research were excluded. A US-only cohort ("US-Only") was evaluated separately from the entire cohort ("Whole"). The IOC for each article was calculated by dividing the number of citations listed in PubMed by the days from the publication date to 9/1/2021. The IOC per US institution was summarized by the median value. All articles were hand reviewed for correctness. The Whole cohort included all countries with 3 or more publications (including all of the US-Only cohort) and underwent similar analysis. Correlation coefficients were estimated using Pearson's correlation after log-transformation.ResultsIn the US-only cohort, 2733 articles from 276 institutions within the US contributed original articles to the Journal. The association between the number of publications per institution and the median IOC was not well correlated (Pearson's Correlation coeffeicient r = 0.16, p = 0.009). In the Whole cohort, 5,848 original research articles were published from 40 countries. There was no difference between median IOC for articles from US compared to non-US institutions was (0.0026 vs 0.0027, p = 0.287). The US median IOC was ranked 17/40. The US accounted for just over half (51.2%) of publications, and there was a trend of decreasing Non-US publications over time (p = 0.0004).ConclusionsThe Journal was fairly consistent in the quality of articles published over the 15-year study period when using the IOC as a surrogate for quality, regardless of the article's country or US institution of origin.
| S-EPMC8933665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCitation analysis is commonly used to evaluate the impact of academic publications within an area of study. The purpose of this study is to review the publications with the highest Altmetric scores related to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and assess the correlation with traditional bibliometrics.MethodsAltmetric scores were obtained for the top articles relating to THA and TKA and organized from highest to lowest scores. The Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database was used to search the top articles by Altmetric score. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed for various metrics, including number of citations, journal impact factor at the time of publication, and study type and design.ResultsThe top THA and TKA publications were cited 3042 times and 7523 times, respectively. The former were published in journals with an average impact factor of 17.861, and the latter in journals with an average impact factor of 15.564. For THA, Altmetric score demonstrated a significant, weakly positive correlation with the number of citations (P = .008). For TKA, Altmetric score was found to have a significant, weakly positive correlation with impact factor of journal (P = .04); however, it was nonsignificant for citation count (P = .11). When one outlier is removed, the correlation with citation count is statistically significant (P = .009).ConclusionWhile alternative metrics cannot replace traditional bibliometrics, they may serve a complimentary role in describing the influence of research. Thus, the Altmetric score represents an additional tool to identify the most influential articles to guide learning and evidence-based practice.
| S-EPMC7876517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study considered all articles published in six Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals in 2012 and Web of Science citations for these articles as of May 2015. A total of 2,406 articles were analyzed to examine the relationships between Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) and Web of Science citations. The AAS for an article, provided by Altmetric aggregates activities surrounding research outputs in social media (news outlet mentions, tweets, blogs, Wikipedia, etc.). Spearman correlation testing was done on all articles and articles with AAS. Further analysis compared the stratified datasets based on percentile ranks of AAS: top 50%, top 25%, top 10%, and top 1%. Comparisons across the six journals provided additional insights. The results show significant positive correlations between AAS and citations with varied strength for all articles and articles with AAS (or social media mentions), as well as for normalized AAS in the top 50%, top 25%, top 10%, and top 1% datasets. Four of the six PLOS journals, Genetics, Pathogens, Computational Biology, and Neglected Tropical Diseases, show significant positive correlations across all datasets. However, for the two journals with high impact factors, PLOS Biology and Medicine, the results are unexpected: the Medicine articles showed no significant correlations but the Biology articles tested positive for correlations with the whole dataset and the set with AAS. Both journals published substantially fewer articles than the other four journals. Further research to validate the AAS algorithm, adjust the weighting scheme, and include appropriate social media sources is needed to understand the potential uses and meaning of AAS in different contexts and its relationship to other metrics.
| S-EPMC5886419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn 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.MethodsThree 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionIn 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.
| S-EPMC8046527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To describe the impact of research, beyond the limits of the academic environment, Altmetric, a new social and traditional media metric was proposed. The aims of this study were to analyze the online activity related to orthodontic research via Altmetric and to assess if a correlation exists among citations, Mendeley reader count, and the AAS (Altmetric Attention Score). METHOD:The Dimensions App was searched for articles published in the orthodontic journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) throughout the years 2014 to 2018. The articles with a positive AAS were collected and screened for data related to publication and authorship. The articles with an AAS higher than 5 were screened for research topic and study design. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus. RESULTS:The best performing journals were Progress in Orthodontics and the European Journal of Orthodontics with a mean AAS per published item of 1.455 and 1.351, respectively and the most prevalent sources were Tweets and Facebook mentions. The most prevalent topic was Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQOL) and the study design was systematic reviews. The correlation between the AAS and the citations in both WOS and Scopus was poor (r = 0.1463 and r = 0.1508, p < .05). The correlation between citations count and Mendeley reader (r = 0.6879 and r = 0.697, p < .05) was moderate. CONCLUSIONS:Few journals displayed a high level of web activity. Journals and editors should enhance online dissemination of the scientific outputs. The authors should report the impact of the findings to the general public in a convenient way to facilitate online dissemination but to avoid an opportunistic use of the research outputs. Despite the lack of correlation, a combination of the citation count and the AAS can give a more comprehensive assessment of research impact.
| S-EPMC7502643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the ability of an office-administered phenotypic frailty assessment to predict chemotherapy tolerance in older adult gynecologic oncology patients, and describe practice patterns for chemotherapy administration in this population. METHODS:Prospective, single-institution cohort study of gynecologic oncology patients 65 or older initiating chemotherapy. Phenotypic frailty testing at an office visit encompassed components of two validated frailty assessments: Fried Score (physical testing and patient response) and FRAIL Scale (patient response only). Patients were followed through three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or six cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Standard statistics examined the relationship of frailty to chemotherapy regimen, ability to complete chemotherapy, and complications. RESULTS:Eighty patients were included, 65% with ovarian and 34% with endometrial cancer. On average 57% of patients were fit, 32% intermediately frail, and 11% frail. 68% received adjuvant chemotherapy versus 32% neoadjuvant. The majority (81%) received IV chemotherapy on a 21-day?cycle and 81% initially received a regimen consistent with standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOCC). Age was not associated with receiving SOCC, or tolerance or completion of chemotherapy. Frailty was associated with non-initiation of SOCC in all patients and inability to complete SOCC in adjuvant patients. Complications and regimen alterations were common but were not associated with frailty. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need to develop tools to help physicians predict chemotherapy tolerance among older adult gynecologic oncology patients in order to prevent both under- and over-treatment while minimizing morbidity. However, in this study phenotypic frailty assessment had limited predictive utility. Among adjuvant chemotherapy patients, frailty was associated with inability to complete SOCC and thus may be helpful in selecting patients appropriate for less aggressive chemotherapy regimens.
| S-EPMC6358476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Authorship confers credit to those responsible for a publication. In 1985, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria were founded to standardize authorship assignment. We sought to investigate practices and values in authorship assignment in Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members. An anonymous online survey was distributed to SGO members from 09/2018-10/2018. Three multivariable logistic regression models were fit to predict ICJME authorship acceptance, assignment and denial. Of 1111 members surveyed, 266 responses were received (23.9%); 30.6% reported prior authorship assignment that did not meet ICMJE criteria, and 18.8% (n = 50) reported a history of accepting authorship not meeting ICJME criteria. Reasons for non-adherence included: inclusion of the author's patients in the study (59.3%), resumé building (45.7%), and networking for career advancement (22.2%). The majority responded that ICJME criteria were generalizable (91.3%), helpful (83.8%), and considered non-adherence as scientific misconduct (66.0%). On multivariable analysis, practice duration of 5-20 years (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16, 0.99, p < 0.05) or > 20 years (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08, 0.59, p < 0.05) were significant predictors for adherence with ICMJE authorship assignment compared to fellows and those in practice < 5 years. Similarly, practice duration of 5-20 years (HR 10.0, 95% CI 2.0, 49.2, p < 0.05) or > 20 years (HR 25.9, 95% CI 1.06, 3.9, p < 0.05) were significant predictors for denial of authorship assignment compared to fellows and those in practice < 5 years. While the majority of respondents report that ICJME criteria are helpful, adherence to these criteria is a concern, especially in fellows and early-career faculty.
| S-EPMC8027688 | biostudies-literature