bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2019‒08‒18
fifteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019 Jul - Aug;13(4):pii: S1871-4021(19)30340-6. [Epub ahead of print]13(4): 2437-2440
    Muñoz-Velandia OM, Fernández-Ávila DG, Patino-Hernandez D, Gómez AM.
      AIMS: Traditional journal level metrics, as the impact factor or Scimago journal ranking indicator (SJR) measure the impact of research on other researchers, but fail to assess the reach of these publications among wider audiences. This study aims to assess the correlation between SJR and metrics of presence on social networks of endocrinology journals.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Journals within the area of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism were identified from the electronic portal Scimago Journal and Country Rank, and their metrics based on the number of citation collected. Different metrics of the presence on social networks, such as the number of followers and number of tweets, were assessed. The correlation between both metrics was evaluated by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient.
    RESULTS: Of the 232 journals evaluated, 28 (12.1%) had social networks. The median SJR (1.53 vs 0.60, p < 0.01), and H index (58.5 vs 22, p < 0.01) were significantly higher among journals with social networks. The correlation between the number of followers on twitter and the SJR was moderate (r = 0.60, p < 0.05), and it was better in journals with more than 500 publications in the last 3 years (r = 0.85, p < 0.05). The number of tweets also had a moderate correlation with the SJR (r = 0.59, p < 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the dissemination of research on social networks is moderately related to the traditional metrics of impact. Both types of metrics offer complementary information: while metrics based on social media may not perfectly predict the impact a scientific journal, it does have the advantage of immediacy.
    Keywords:  Endocrinology; Social media; Twitter
  2. Nurs Outlook. 2019 Aug 12. pii: S0029-6554(19)30354-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Kakamad FH, Salih AM, Baba HO.
  3. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019 Jul 25. pii: S1053-0770(19)30780-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Pagel PS, Freed JK, Lien CA.
      OBJECTIVE: Gender disparities in editorial board composition exist in the vast majority of specialties including anesthesiology. If a similar lack of gender parity exists in cardiothoracic anesthesiology is unknown. The authors examined the gender composition and trends of the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (JCVA) editorial board from the initial year of its publication (1987) to 2019. The authors tested the hypothesis that the proportion of women serving on the JCVA editorial board has steadily increased over the journal's history, but women are underrepresented compared with the percentage of those currently practicing academic cardiothoracic anesthesia in the United States (US).DESIGN: Observational study.
    SETTING: Internet analysis.
    PARTICIPANTS: All members of the JCVA editorial board, 1987-2019.
    INTERVENTIONS: The JCVA editor-in-chief, the associate editor-in-chief, associate editors, section editors, and general editors on the board were extracted from the masthead of a single issue from each calendar year. The years were divided into quartiles (1987-1995, 1996-2003, 2004-2011, and 2012-2019) to collect representative samples of editorial board composition for analysis.
    MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 2,797 members of the JCVA editorial board were positively identified (2,477 [88.6%] men; 310 [11.1%] women); 10 (0.3%) editors could not be identified. Four hundred and fourteen associate and section editors were recorded (men 360 [87.0%], women 54 [13.0%]). There were also 2,353 general editors (2,087 [88.7%] men; 256 [10.9%] women). The total number of JCVA board members, associate and section editors, and general editors progressively increased from 1987 to 1995 to 2012 to 2019. The percentage of women serving on the editorial board increased from 2.5% to 15.8%. Increases in the proportion of female general editors from 2.9% to 16.2% were responsible for this overall increase. A gender gap between the percentage of female first authors (data obtained from a previous publication) and editorial board members was observed in each quartile. Editorial board composition was also different than last author distribution in 1987 to 1995 and 2012 to 2019, but not the other 2 time periods.
    CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that the proportion of women serving on the JCVA editorial board has steadily increased over the journal's history. Nevertheless, women continue to be underrepresented on the JCVA board compared with the percentage of US female academic cardiothoracic anesthesiologists, and gender gaps between first and last authorship and board composition also persist.
    Keywords:  cardiothoracic anesthesiology; editorial board; gender equality; leadership; women in academic medicine
  4. PLoS Biol. 2019 Aug 12. 17(8): e3000384
    Ioannidis JPA, Baas J, Klavans R, Boyack KW.
      Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of 100,000 top scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, coauthorship-adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions, and a composite indicator. Separate data are shown for career-long and single-year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists who have published at least five papers. Career-long data are updated to end of 2017 and to end of 2018 for comparison.
  5. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2019 Aug 12. pii: S0001-37652019000500607. [Epub ahead of print]91(3): e20180414
    Boos H, Rodrigues C, Araujo PB.
      The deep sea remains the least known biome. Despite this fact, anthropic activities have affected these regions in various ways. The objective of this study was to outline the scientific production scenario based on deep sea research and to analyze trends present in the literature. For this, the bibliographical resources available from the Web of Science (WoS) were surveyed. Between 1987 and 2016, 11,079 articles on the deep sea were published. Growth was over 100% from the first to second decade and 75% from the second to third. The most productive countries were the USA, Germany, France, England and Japan. Of the 404 journals that published articles on the deep sea, 10% accounted for approximately 60% of the total published articles. The keyword with the highest occurrence was "diversity". In the first two decades, the keywords with the greatest "strength" were related to research on mining, especially for hydrocarbons. The description of new species and the analysis of the effects of climate change appear to be emerging trends in deep sea research. Mining continues to be primarily responsible for driving the development of deep sea research.
  6. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019 Aug 15.
    Kramer PW, Kohnen T, Groneberg DA, Bendels MHK.
      Importance: Previous studies examined sex distributions in different medical faculties, especially because increasingly more women entered the medical field in recent decades. Little is known at present about the female representation in ophthalmic research.Objective: To clarify sex equalities in ophthalmic research by evaluating the representation of female authorships.
    Design and Setting: This bibliometric analysis included original English-language articles published in ophthalmologic journals indexed in the Web of Science from January 2008 to August 2018. Authorships were assigned by sex according to first name.
    Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the proportion of female authorships, odds ratios of women holding prestigious first and last authorships compared with men (measured by the prestige index), citation rates, a productivity analysis, and cross-journal and transnational female representation within ophthalmic research. The hypothesis was formulated during data collection.
    Results: Bibliometric data were abstracted from 87 640 original articles published in 248 ophthalmologic journals. Of 344 433 total authorships, female scholars held 34.9% (120 305 of 344 433) of all authorships, 37.1% (24 924 of 67 226) of first authorships, 36.7% (77 295 of 210 372) of coauthorships, and 27.1% (18 086 of 66 835) of last authorships. The female-to-male odds ratio was 1.12 (95% CI, 1.10-1.14) for first authorships, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.18-1.22) for coauthorships, and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.62-0.64) for last authorships, with annual growth rates of 1.6% overall, 1.6% for first authorships, 1.3% for coauthorships, and 2.5% for last authorships. Women were underrepresented in prestigious authorships (prestige index = -0.22). The underrepresentation remains almost stable for articles with many authors (prestige index = -0.17 for articles with >9 authors per article). Articles with female key authors were cited slightly less frequently (95% CI for female vs male authors, 10.8-11.0 vs 11.5-11.7 citations/articles). Women published fewer papers than men (42.5% [n = 41 383]; women held 34.9% [n = 120 207] of the authorships), show cross-journal uniformity and differences among single countries (change in prestige index = 0.66 vs 1.96). Overall, 44.1% of female authorships and a sex-neutral distribution of prestigious authorships are prognosticated for 2028.
    Conclusions and Relevance: This algorithm analysis suggests the integration of women into ophthalmic research is average compared with other disciplines. A sex-specific gap exists for last authorship, suggesting career inequalities. With a growing number of female researchers in ophthalmology, the number of women in senior ranks may increase in the future.
  7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Aug 12.
    Hollenberg AM, Bernstein DN, Baldwin AL, Beltejar MJ, Rubery PT, Mesfin A.
      STUDY DESIGN: Literature review.OBJECTIVE: To determine characteristics and trends in published spine research over a recent decade in a high impact, general orthopaedic surgery journal.
    SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent trends in published spine research in a high-impact orthopaedic surgery journal are unknown. Such knowledge could guide future research in the field.
    METHODS: A comprehensive literature review of clinical and basic science spine articles published in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) from 2006 - 2015 was conducted. Articles were assessed for: title, year of publication, authorship, academic degrees of the authors, number of citations, institution of origin, and spine topic. Clinical articles were evaluated for: sex and race/ethnicity of the human subjects, level of evidence, and inclusion of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Basic science articles were evaluated for: type of study (animal, cadaver, cell-based), sex of the animals, cadavers or cells studied (male, female, or male and female), and presence of sex-based reporting (defined as reporting of results by sex).
    RESULTS: A total of 203 spine articles were evaluated from the ten-year study period. At least 35 validated or non-validated patient-reported outcome measures were utilized in clinical spine research. The most commonly reported PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (24.4%), Short Form-36 Health Survey (23.7%), and Visual Analog Scale for Pain (19.3%). The average level of evidence improved from 3.25 in 2006 to 2.60 in 2015. Only 13.2% of clinical spine articles reported the race/ethnicity of the subjects.
    CONCLUSIONS: A consensus regarding validated PROMs in spine research would be valuable. From 2006 to 2015, the level of evidence of spine articles in JBJS improved. Accurate and complete reporting of patient demographics is an area for improvement in spine research in light of studies demonstrating sex and race/ethnicity-related differences in clinical outcome after spine surgery.
  8. Acta Odontol Scand. 2019 Aug 16. 1-11
    Gogos C, Kodonas K, Fardi A, Economides N.
      Objective: The purpose of the present study was to identify the 100 top cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses on dental journals so as to gain insight into the influential publications in dentistry. Material and methods: The Web of Science was used to comprehensively identify the 100 most cited papers without year and language restriction. Specific parameters regarding the title, journal, publication year, authors, country of origin, institution and university, collaborations, keyword analysis and field of study of each manuscript were retrieved. Results: The citations ranged from 642 to 140. The most productive years were 2008 and 2009. The majority of top cited papers were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research and Journal of Clinical Periodontology. The leading countries were United States, followed by Switzerland. The University of Zurich was the most productive institution with 8 articles. Major topics of interest in the top 100 most-cited papers were dental implants and periodontology. The most frequently occurring keywords were systematic review, dental implants and meta-analyses. Conclusions: Systematic reviews published in high impact factor Dental journals focused on implantology and periodontology had the highest citation rates. Obviously, the top cited list is dynamic, as scientific interests and research tendencies evolve over the years.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; citation analysis; meta-analysis; systematic review
  9. Cureus. 2019 Jun 05. 11(6): e4838
    Zisblatt L, Chen F, Dillman D, DiLorenzo AN, MacEachern MP, Miller Juve A, Peoples EE, Grantham AE.
      Background Critical appraisals provide a method for establishing the status of an area of study or evaluating the effectiveness of literature within it. The purpose of this study was to review and appraise studies published in 2017 on medical education in anesthesiology and to provide summaries of the highest-quality medical education research articles in the field. Methods Three Ovid MEDLINE databases,, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsycINFO, were searched followed by a manual review of articles published in the highest impact factor journals in both the fields of anesthesiology and medical education. Abstracts were double-screened and quantitative articles subsequently scored by three randomly assigned raters. Qualitative studies were scored by two raters. Two different rubrics were used for scoring quantitative and qualitative studies, both allowed for scores ranging from 1-25. Results A total of 864 unique citations were identified through the search criteria. Of those, 62 articles met the inclusion criteria, with 59 quantitative and three qualitative. The top 10 papers with the highest scores were reported and summarized. Discussion As the first article to critically review the literature available for education in anesthesiology, we hope that this study will serve as the first manuscript in an annual series that will help individuals involved in anesthesiology education gain an understanding of the highest-quality research in the field. Once this process is repeated, trends can be tracked and serve as a resource to educators and researchers in anesthesiology for years to come.
    Keywords:  anesthesiology; bibliometric; medical education
  10. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov (N Y). 2019 ;9
    León Ruiz M, Benito-León J.
      Background: Article-level citation count is a hallmark indicating scientific impact. We aimed to pinpoint and evaluate the top 50 most-cited articles in orthostatic tremor (OT).Methods: The ISI Web of Knowledge database and 2017 Journal Citation Report Science Edition were used to retrieve the 50 top-cited OT articles published from 1984 to April 2019. Information was collected by the Analyze Tool on the Web of Science, including number of citations, publication title, journal name, publication year, and country and institution of origin. Supplementary analyses were undertaken to clarify authorship, study design, level of evidence, and category.
    Results: Up to 66% of manuscripts were recovered from five journals: Movement Disorders (n = 18), Brain (n = 4), Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology (n = 4), Neurology (n = 4), and Clinical Neurophysiology (n = 3). Articles were published between 1984 and 2018, with expert opinion as the predominant design (n = 22) and review as category (n = 17). Most articles had level 5 evidence (n = 26). According to their countries of origin, 34% of articles belonged to the United States (n = 17) leading the list, followed by United Kingdom (n = 15). University College London yielded the greater number of articles (n = 12), followed by the University of Kiel (n = 9). Most popular authors were G. Deuschl (n = 10), C.D. Marsden (n = 6), J. Jankovic (n = 5), P.D. Thompson (n = 5), J.C. Rothwell (n = 5), L.J. Findley (n = 4), and P. Brown (n = 4), who together accounted for 48% of them. All papers were in English.
    Discussion: Publishing high-cited OT articles could be facilitated by source journal, study design, category, publication language, and country and institution of origin.
    Keywords:  Articles; bibliometrics; citation analysis; impact; orthostatic tremor; top-cited
  11. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Aug 15. 1-3
    West E, Mutasa S, Zhu Z, Ha R.
      OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the global trend in artificial intelligence (AI)-based research productivity involving radiology and its subspecialty disciplines. CONCLUSION. The United States is the global leader in AI radiology publication productivity, accounting for almost half of total radiology AI output. Other countries have increased their productivity. Notably, China has increased its productivity exponentially to close to 20% of all AI publications. The top three most productive radiology subspecialties were neuroradiology, body and chest, and nuclear medicine.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; artificial neural network; bibliometric
  12. Clin Spine Surg. 2019 Aug 09.
    Yang G, Li Z, Ye W, Huang S, Liu S, Liu K, Tan Q.
      STUDY DESIGN: A bibliometric review of the literature.OBJECT: To analyze and quantify the most frequently cited papers in intervertebral disk research.
    SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The number of citations that a paper has received reflects its impact in related research area. In the field of disk research, however, it remains unknown which papers are most cited. By searching related literature databases, we identified the most cited 100 articles that advanced the understanding of the intervertebral disk to provide a historic view of scientific research of the disk.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intervertebral disk original research-related publications from January 1, 1900 to December 31, 2017 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Each retrieved article was analyzed using the Cited Reference Search tool to identify the most cited articles. The number of citations, year of publication, publishing journal, authorship, country of publication, and the knowledge maps of keywords were gathered and generated.
    RESULTS: The number of citations of the 100 selected articles ranges from 209 to 1269, and they were published from 1953 to 2009. Basic research is the most common type of study (n=60), followed by epidemiological study (n=40). Spine published 57 of the most cited 100 papers. The greatest contribution came from the United States of America (n=41), followed by the United Kingdom (n=18) and Japan (n=9). Frequently appearing keywords classified into 3 clusters: "biological study," "clinical study," and "imageological study." The keyword "degeneration" was mentioned the most, 51 items, and the word "development" was the latest hot spot in the most cited articles.
    CONCLUSIONS: In the field of disk research, some papers were heavily cited more than 100 times, suggesting these studies have substantially contributed to the body of knowledge of the intervertebral disk and findings were widely accepted by related clinicians and scientists.
  13. Ir J Med Sci. 2019 Aug 15.
    Karydakis P, Giakoumettis D, Themistocleous M.
      BACKGROUND: The high incidence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in children, combined with the challenges in diagnosis and treatment options, the difficulty of predicting the outcome of each case, and also the wide variety of possibly lifelong complications, has led to an extraordinary number of published papers regarding this topic. This bibliometric analysis is aimed at identifying and reviewing the 100 most cited papers in the most challenging and trending aspects of pediatric traumatic brain injury.METHODS: A search was performed using the Web of Science database in October 2018. Results were organized by citation number, and the 100 most cited papers were further reviewed and analyzed.
    RESULTS: Our search resulted in 2754 published papers from 1975 until October 2018, of which 1783 (64.74%) had been published in the last decade (2010-2018). The 100 most cited papers about traumatic brain injury in children have an average citation of 140.59 and have been published in 44 different journals. Four hundred thirty-five authors have contributed to these prominent articles, most of them from the USA.
    CONCLUSIONS: By reviewing those highly cited papers, we sought to offer significant help not only for studying this challenging field but also for designing new studies.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Brain; Injury; Pediatric
  14. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019 Aug;29 83-84
    Penn CA, Ebott JA, Larach DB, Hesson AM, Waljee JF, Larach MG.
      Female first authorship and senior authorship in academic obstetrics and gynecology has increased over time but gender-specific publishing data are lacking within gynecologic oncology. We examined contribution by gender to the subspecialty's flagship journal, Gynecologic Oncology, over five decades, from 1972 to 2014, to identify trends in gender representation. Chi-square tests were used to compare gender distributions within and between the first and last years studied (1972-73 and 2014) as well as linear regression to model trends over time. Female first and senior authorship increased significantly from 1972 to 2014 (first: χ2 = 20.9, p < .01; senior: χ2 = 9.9, p < .01). The number of female first authors increased markedly after 2000. Male senior authors still outnumber female senior authors. Papers with senior female authors were more likely to have female first authors, suggesting a mentorship role. Subspecialty-wide gender equity initiatives should encourage continued mentorship of women by female colleagues.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Female; Gender; Gynecologic oncology