Predictors of Citations in Neurosurgical Research

Oravec, Chesney S; Frey, Casey D.; Berwick, Benjamin W.; Vilella, Lukas; Aschenbrenner, Carol A.; Wolfe, Stacey Quintero; Fargen, Kyle M

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.05.226

Cited by 16 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, LOE was significantly associated with citation count, which was in accordance with previous studies (Cheng, Dodson, Egbert, & Susarla, 2017; Okike et al., 2011; Oravec et al., 2019). It is an encouraging result that in oral implantology, scientific authors are aware of the importance of LOE and studies of higher LOE have stronger scientific impact.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…In this study, LOE was significantly associated with citation count, which was in accordance with previous studies (Cheng, Dodson, Egbert, & Susarla, 2017;Okike et al, 2011;Oravec et al, 2019). It The differences among the results might be explained by sample selection.…”

Section: Loe and Scientific Impactsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Studies in orthopedics (Okike et al., 2011), oral and maxillofacial surgery (Cheng, Dodson, Egbert, & Susarla, 2017), and other medical specialties (e.g. neurosurgery; Oravec et al., 2019) have reported significant associations between LOE and citation count. However, some authors have reported that LOE was not significantly associated with citation count (Callaham, Wears, & Weber, 2002; Joyce, Joyce, Kelly, Kelly, & Carroll, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008–2018

Yan

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals during 2008-2018 and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact. Materials and methods: Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013, and 2018 in six oral implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study were extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts, and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects. Results: A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3, and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2%, and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p = .002) and AAS (p = .005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies. Conclusions: During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of oral implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Loe and Scientific Impactsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008–2018

Yan

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, high LOE studies tend to get more citations, which was in accordance with prior studies conducted in the field of orthopaedic (Okike et al, 2011), oral and maxillofacial surgery (Cheng et al, 2017), and neurosurgical medicine (Oravec et al, 2019). On the contrary, in another study analysing the 300 most cited studies published in periodontology before 2015, only four systematic reviews and nineteen RCTs among the 300 studies (Faggion et al, 2017).…”

Section: Loe and Scientific Impactsupporting

confidence: 90%

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

Meng

Xiang

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To analyse the level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies in the field of periodontology, and to investigate whether LOE is a predictor of scientific impact and social impact. Materials and Methods: Clinical studies published in five leading periodontal journals during 2015-2019 were identified. The LOE of included studies were assessed with a modified LOE classification system based on Oxford 2009 LOE, Oxford 2011 LOE and GRADE guidelines. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science and Scopus. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were obtained from Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable generalized estimation equation (GEE) analyses were used to investigate association between LOE and citation count, as well as between LOE and AAS. Results: Among 768 studies included, the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3 and level-4 was 10.4%, 44.8%, 13.7% and 31.1%, respectively. In the multivariable GEE analyses, high LOE was a significant predictor of higher average citation count (p = .010) and higher AAS (p < .001). Conclusion: The LOE of clinical studies in the periodontal field is relatively high in general, although it varies significantly in different journals. Studies with high LOE tend to have greater scientific impact and social impact than low LOE studies.

show abstract

“…Citation-based metrics are used for calculating the impact factor (IF) of journals and for evaluating the academic productivity of researchers. The number of citations an article receives, also referred to as the citation rate, is arguably the most important measure of a study’s impact and clinical weight [ 1 ]. An analysis of the various article, journal, and author-related factors that may affect citation rates was reported in two publications [ 2 , 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Citation Rates in High-Impact Glioblastoma Clinical Trials

Jamjoom¹,

Gahtani²,

Jamjoom³

2021

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical trials are at the top of research study designs and tend to attract high citation numbers. Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a multidisciplinary disease that continues to be the subject of peak research interest. In general, the literature relating to the predictors of citation rates in clinical trials remains limited. This review aims to identify the factors that influence citation numbers in high-impact GBM clinical trials. The 100 most cited GBM trials of any phase published from 1975 to 2019 were selected and reviewed. The primary analysis correlated citation numbers of articles with various trial and publication-related predictors using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The secondary analysis compared the mean citation numbers for different subgroups using the mean difference test. The median (range) citation number for the selected 100 trials was 349 (135-16,384). The primary analysis showed a significant correlation between citation numbers of articles and the study population (P = 0.024), trial phase (I-III) (P = 0.0427), and the impact factor (IF) of the journal (P < 0.0001). The secondary analysis demonstrated significantly higher mean citation numbers in all trials with the following features: study population ≥115 (P = 0.0208), phase III (P = 0.0372), treatment protocol including radiotherapy (P = 0.0189), temozolomide (TMZ) therapy (P = 0.0343), IF of the journal ≥14.9 (P = 0.02), and general medical journals (P = 0.28). We conclude that the most significant predictors of citation rates in high-impact GBM trials were the study population, trial phase, and journal’s IF. The treatment protocol was a positive predictor when it included the currently widely accepted treatment modalities (radiotherapy and TZM). Randomization, age of publication, as well as the numbers of arms, authors, centers, countries, and references were not significant predictors. Increasing awareness of the factors that could affect citations may help researchers undertaking clinical trials to enhance the academic impact of their work.

show abstract

Predictors of Citations in Neurosurgical Research

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008–2018

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008–2018

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

Predictors of Citation Rates in High-Impact Glioblastoma Clinical Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About