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: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: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
Project description:A citation is deemed as a potential parameter to determine linkage between research articles. The parameter has extensively been employed to form multifarious academic aspects like calculating the impact factor of journals, h-Index of researchers, allocate different research grants, find the latest research trends, etc. The current state-of-the-art contends that all citations are not of equal importance. Based on this argument, the current trend in citation classification community categorizes citations into important and non-important reasons. The community has proposed different approaches to extract important citations such as citation count, context-based, metadata, and textual based approaches. The contemporary state-of-the-art in citation classification community ignores significantly potential features that can play a vital role in citation classification. This research presents a novel approach for binary citation classification by exploiting section-wise in-text citation frequencies, similarity score, and overall citation count-based features. The study also introduces machine learning algorithms based novel approach for assigning appropriate weights to the logical sections of research papers. The weights are allocated to the citations with respect to their sections. To perform the classification, we used three classification techniques, Support Vector Machine, Kernel Linear Regression, and Random Forest. The experiment was performed on two annotated benchmark datasets that contain 465 and 311 citation pairs of research articles respectively. The results revealed that the proposed approach attained an improved value of precision (i.e., 0.84 vs 0.72) from contemporary state-of-the-art approach.
| S-EPMC7058319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Palliative care is recognized as an important component of oncologic care. We sought to assess the quality/quantity of palliative care education in gynecologic oncology fellowship.A self-administered on-line questionnaire was distributed to current gynecologic oncology fellow and candidate members during the 2013 academic year. Descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed.Of 201 fellow and candidate members, 74.1% (n=149) responded. Respondents were primarily women (75%) and white (76%). Only 11% of respondents participated in a palliative care rotation. Respondents rated the overall quality of teaching received on management of ovarian cancer significantly higher than management of patients at end of life (EOL), independent of level of training (8.25 vs. 6.23; p<0.0005). Forty-six percent reported never being observed discussing transition of care from curative to palliative with a patient, and 56% never received feedback about technique regarding discussions on EOL care. When asked to recall their most recent patient who had died, 83% reported enrollment in hospice within 4 weeks of death. Fellows reporting higher quality EOL education were significantly more likely to feel prepared to care for patients at EOL (p<0.0005). Mean ranking of preparedness increased with the number of times a fellow reported discussing changing goals from curative to palliative and the number of times he/she received feedback from an attending (p<0.0005).Gynecologic oncology fellow/candidate members reported insufficient palliative care education. Those respondents reporting higher quality EOL training felt more prepared to care for dying patients and to address complications commonly encountered in this setting.
| S-EPMC4191825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesFinancial toxicity is increasingly recognized as an adverse outcome of cancer treatment. Our objective was to measure financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients and its association with demographic and disease-related characteristics; self-reported overall health; and cost-coping strategies.MethodsFollow-up patients at a gynecologic oncology practice completed a survey including the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and a self-reported overall health assessment, the EQ-VAS. We abstracted disease and treatment characteristics from medical records. We dichotomized COST scores into low and high financial toxicity and assessed the correlation (r) between COST scores and self-reported health. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of demographic and disease-related characteristics with high financial toxicity, as well as the associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies.ResultsAmong 240 respondents, median COST score was 29. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse self-reported health (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). In the crude analysis, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, unemployment, cervical cancer and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with high financial toxicity. In the multivariable analysis, only government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, and treatment with chemotherapy were significantly associated with high financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with all cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care (RR: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.8-19.1).ConclusionsAmong highly-insured gynecologic oncology patients, many respondents reported high levels of financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with worse self-reported overall health and cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care.
| S-EPMC7001853 | biostudies-literature