Changing the Status Quo: The 100 Most-Disruptive Papers in Urology?

Khusid, Johnathan A.; Gupta, Mantu; Sadiq, Areeba; Atallah, William; Becerra, Adan Z.

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.073

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is expected because of the necessary lead time for a focal article to gain enough future citations to make it disruptive. These applications of the DS also showed that there was no or very weak correlation between DS and citation count, which is similar to our correlation coefficient of 0.094 4–6,8 . This continues to reinforce the idea that the DS is capturing a unique metric of the literature not seen in other measures such as the H-index.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Using the Disruptive Score to Identify Publications That Changed Plastic Surgery Practice

Neubauer,

Blum,

Labou

et al. 2022

Ann Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The impact of academic publications is often characterized by the total number of future citations. However, this metric does not adequately characterize the true impact in terms of changing practices or paradigms. A new metric called the “disruption score” (DS) has been developed and validated in nonsurgical publications. This study aims to use the DS to identify the most disruptive publications in plastic surgery. The DS, a ratio of 2 numbers, varies between −1 and +1. Scores closer to −1 are developing papers that summarize the known literature while papers closer to +1 are disruptive—they result in a paradigm shift in the field of study. Methods A search was performed for all articles from 1954 to 2014 in the following journals: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Aesthetic Surgery Journal; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery; Annals of Plastic Surgery; Aesthetic Plastic Surgery; Clinics in Plastic Surgery; and Plastic Surgery. The disruptive score was calculated for each article. The top 100 papers ranked by DS were examined and any editorials/viewpoints, publications with less than 26 citations, or less than 3 references were excluded because of their subjective nature and smaller academic contribution. The remaining 64 publications were analyzed for topic, study type, and citation count. Results A total of 32,622 articles were found with a DS range from 0.385 to 0.923. The mean score of the top 64 articles was 0.539 with an average citation count of 195 and 9 references. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the most disruptive papers with 50. There were no randomized controlled trials with a majority of the studies being technical descriptions or case series. Conclusions There are many ways to measure academic success, but there are fewer ways to measure the impact of academic contributions. The DS is a novel measurement that can demonstrate when an article results in a paradigm shift as opposed to just total citation count. When applied to the plastic surgery literature, the DS demonstrates that technical innovation and creativity are the most academically impactful. Future evaluations of academic success should include the DS to measure the quality of academic contributions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Using the Disruptive Score to Identify Publications That Changed Plastic Surgery Practice

Neubauer,

Blum,

Labou

et al. 2022

Ann Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Supplemental Figure 1, http://links.lww.com/TA/D32, shows the percent of DR and DS articles from the 10 most commonly identified journals. Regarding citation counts, the average citations were 22 with a median of 4 [IQR, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disruption score analysis can identify important scientific work that may be missed by other bibliometric techniques. This technique has been used to identify important works in multiple surgical subspecialties that had previously been overlooked 2,9–16 . Disruptive work in the surgical field is rare.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Citation versus disruption in the military: Analysis of the top disruptive military trauma research publications

Gallagher

Bram

Williams

et al. 2023

J Trauma Acute Care Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Bibliometric analysis of surgical research has become increasingly prevalent. Citation count (CC) is a commonly used marker of research quality, but may overlook impactful military research. The disruption score (DS) evaluates manuscripts on a spectrum from most innovative with more positive scores (disruptive [DR]) to most entrenched with more negative scores (developmental; DV). We sought to analyze the most DR and DV versus most cited research in military trauma. METHODS Top trauma articles by DS and by CC were identified via professional literature search. All publications in military journals were included. Military trauma-related keywords were used to query additional top surgical journals for military-focused publications. Publications were linked to the iCite NIH tool for CC and related metrics. The top 100 DR and DV publications by DS were analyzed and compared with the top 100 articles by CC. RESULTS Overall, 32,040 articles published between 1954 and 2014 were identified. The average DS and CC were 0.01 and 22, respectively. Most articles were published in Mil Med (68%). The top 100 DR articles were frequently published in Mil Med (51%) with a mean DS of 0.148. Of these, the most cited article was only the 40th most disruptive. The top 100 CC articles averaged a DS of 0.009 and were commonly found in J Trauma (53%). Only five publications were on both the top 100 DR and top 100 CC lists; 19 were on both the top DV and CC lists. Citation count was not correlated with DR (r = −0.134; p = 0.07) and only weakly correlated with DV (r = 0.215; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION DS identifies publications that changed military paradigms and future research directions previously overlooked by citation count alone. The DR and DV articles are distinct with little overlap between highly cited military articles. Multiple bibliometric measures should be employed to avoid overlooking impactful military trauma research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level IV.

show abstract

“…Several previous studies have used bibliometrics to analyze craniofacial papers. 4,5,9,10 Recent publications have used the disruptive metric to characterize urology 11 and general surgery research, 12 but no such analysis has focused on craniofacial surgery research. The purpose of the present study was to identify the 100 most disruptive papers in craniofacial surgery in 4 craniofacial journals as well as craniofacial papers published in plastic and reconstructive surgery journals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Most Disruptive Publications in Craniofacial Surgery (1954–2014)

Horen

Hansdorfer

Kronshtal

et al. 2021

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Emphasis on the quantification and qualification of scientific literature has increased over recent years. The newly validated disruption score is a bibliometric measure that identifies groundbreaking research that eclipses prior research in a specific field of study. Materials and Methods: The 100 most disruptive craniofacial surgery publications were identified through query of the 4 top craniofacial journals and 10 of the most prominent Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journals, looking at craniofacial specific publications. Results: Presented is the compilation and analysis of the 100 most disruptive publications in the field of craniofacial surgery compared to the 100 most cited publications between 1954 and 2014. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the most papers in the top 100 (n ¼ 56) followed by Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (n ¼ 22), and British Journal of Surgery (n ¼ 12). The correlation coefficient between disruption scores and citation counts was -0.001 and -0.07 among all papers, and the top 100 most disruptive papers, respectively. For craniofacial journals, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery had the highest average disruption score for all published papers. The most common decade represented in the top 100 was the 1980's (n ¼ 32) and the least common was the 2000's (n ¼ 14). Randomized controlled trials did not comprise a large amount of either the most disruptive (n ¼ 1) or most cited (n ¼ 2) lists. Conclusions: This is the first use of disruption index score to describe craniofacial surgery research. The disruption score can help recognize paradigm shifts and innovative research in this unique surgical subspecialty.

show abstract

Changing the Status Quo: The 100 Most-Disruptive Papers in Urology?

Cited by 15 publications

References 19 publications

Using the Disruptive Score to Identify Publications That Changed Plastic Surgery Practice

Using the Disruptive Score to Identify Publications That Changed Plastic Surgery Practice

Citation versus disruption in the military: Analysis of the top disruptive military trauma research publications

The Most Disruptive Publications in Craniofacial Surgery (1954–2014)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About