Academic information retrieval using citation clusters: in-depth evaluation based on systematic reviews

Bascur, Juan Pablo; Verberne, Suzan; Waltman, Ludo

doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04681-x

Cited by 29 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Publication decade 1980s 5 (11) 53,59,62,63,70 1990s 5 (11) 44,52,54,60,61 2000s 10 (21) 27,37,45,47,48,55,56,58,68,69 2010s 19 (40) 28,30,31,[33][34][35]39,42,46,[49][50][51]57,65,67,26,71,72,64 2020s a 8 (17) 36,29,32,38,40,41,43,66 Authorship b Internationally authored 4 (9) 33,36,40,57 Nationally authored 43 (92) [26]…”

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic reviews (n = 1 to n = 250 c ) 32 (68) 28,37,46,69,38,56,64,58,27,55,71,54,52,32,33,35,51,41,50,49,39,45,[29][30][31]68,44,43,67,65,57,42 Systematic and nonsystematic reviews (n = 20) 1 (2) 34 Overviews of reviews (n = 86) 1 (2) 36 Scoping review (n = 1) 3 (6) 40,72,66 Search strategies (n = 1 to n = 89) 6 (13) 47,48,26,60,61,53 Set of references (n = 111 to n = 1331) 4 (9) 62,63,59,70 Medical field/health topic of sample studies…”

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mental or cognitive health/psychology 9 (19) 71,38,46,40,70,72,41,35,66 Orthopedics 6 (13) 56,26,32,58,47,27 Gastroenterology 3 (6) 33,59,63 Hematology/Oncology 3 (6) 28,69,48 Cardiology/Angiology 2 (4) 44,45 Endocrinology 1 (2) 51 Infectiology 1 (2) 34 Pulmonology 1 (2) 62 Health decision/policy making 4 (9) 50,55,39,37 Health diagnostics 3 (6) 54,49,65 Health communication/education 2 (4) 64,52 Various medical fields/health topics 9 (19) 30,31,67,68,36,42,43,57,53 Not reported 3 (6) 60,61,29 Intervention characteristic of sample studies d Clinical intervention 21 (45) 44,51,<...…”

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study focus (n = 47) a Benefit of CT 45 (96) 27,[29][30][31][32][33][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69]26,[70][71][72]28 Technical uses of CT 8 (17) 34,33,28,29,66,72,49,50 Different methods of CT 5 (11)…”

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CT methods used a Backward (direct) 33 (70) 26,27,[29][30][31][33][34][35][36][37][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]48,52,[54][55][56][57][58][59]64,65,[67][68][69]70,71 Forward (direct) 29 (62) [30][31][32]35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]45,46,[50][51][52][53]59,63,60,…”

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: A scoping review

Hirt

Nordhausen

Appenzeller-Herzog

et al. 2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation tracking (CT) collects references with citation relationships to pertinent references that are already known. This scoping review maps the benefit of and the tools and terminology used for CT in health‐related systematic literature searching. We included methodological studies on evidence retrieval by CT in health‐related literature searching without restrictions on study design, language, or publication date. We searched MEDLINE/Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL/EBSCOhost, LLISFT/EBSCOhost, LISTA/EBSCOhost, conducted web searching via Google Scholar, backward/forward CT of included studies and pertinent reviews, and contacting of experts. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction and analysis were performed by one reviewer and checked by another. We screened 11,861 references and included 47 studies published between 1985 and 2021. Most studies (96%) assessed the benefit of CT either as supplementary or primary/stand‐alone search method. Added value of CT for evidence retrieval was found by 96% of them. Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index were the most common citation indexes used. Application of multiple citation indexes in parallel, co‐citing or co‐cited references, CT iterations, or software tools was rare. CT terminology was heterogeneous and frequently ambiguous. The use of CT showed an added value in most of the identified studies; however, the benefit of CT in health‐related systematic literature searching likely depends on multiple factors that could not be assessed with certainty. Application, terminology, and reporting are heterogeneous. Based on our results, we plan a Delphi study to develop recommendations for the use and reporting of CT.

show abstract

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: A scoping review

Hirt

Nordhausen

Appenzeller-Herzog

et al. 2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Seed‐based information retrieval in networks of research publications: Evaluation of direct citations, bibliographic coupling, co‐citations, and PubMed‐related article score

Sjögårde,

Ahlgren

2024

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this contribution, we deal with seed‐based information retrieval in networks of research publications. Using systematic reviews as a baseline, and publication data from the NIH Open Citation Collection, we compare the performance of the three citation‐based approaches direct citation, co‐citation, and bibliographic coupling with respect to recall and precision measures. In addition, we include the PubMed‐related article score as well as combined approaches in the comparison. We also provide a fairly comprehensive review of earlier research in which citation relations have been used for information retrieval purposes. The results show an advantage for co‐citation over bibliographic coupling and direct citation. However, combining the three approaches outperforms the exclusive use of co‐citation in the study. The results further indicate, in line with previous research, that combining citation‐based approaches with textual approaches enhances the performance of seed‐based information retrieval. The results from the study may guide approaches combining citation‐based and textual approaches in their choice of citation similarity measures. We suggest that future research use more structured approaches to evaluate methods for seed‐based retrieval of publications, including comparative approaches as well as the elaboration of common data sets and baselines for evaluation.

show abstract