Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

Predictors of Citation Rates in High-Impact Glioblastoma Clinical Trials

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.

Manuscript characteristics associated with the altmetrics score and social media presence: an analysis of seven spine journals

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Impact factor, citation rate, and other traditional measures of scholarly impact do not account for the role that social media has in the dissemination of research. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) quantifies the active online presence of individual articles on various platforms (eg, Twitter, Facebook).

PURPOSE

We sought to better understand the factors associated with greater online attention and AAS in seven spine journals.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Cross-sectional study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

No patients were included in this study. We analyzed 380 articles in seven major spine journals.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Extracted manuscript characteristics included AAS; number of Twitter, Facebook, and news outlet mentions; number of citations, references, academic institutions, and authors; and sample size, geographic region, subject of study, and level of evidence.

METHODS

All original scientific manuscripts published in the official January, February, and March 2017 issues of Spine, The Spine Journal, Spine Deformity, Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine, Clinical Spine Surgery, Global Spine Journal, and European Spine Journal were identified. The correlation of AAS and number of citations was determined by Spearman's Rho (ρ) correlation coefficient. Manuscript factors associated with AAS were determined by a multivariable linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 380 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The average AAS across all seven journals was 4.9 (SD: 19.4; Range: 0-356), with the highest average AAS reported for The Spine Journal at 8.0 (SD: 13; Range: 0-60). There was a weak, positive correlation between AAS and number of citations (ρ = .32; p < .05); this relationship was individually present for four out of the seven included journals. In addition, number of references was associated with higher average manuscript AAS (β: 0.16 [95% CI: 0.002-0.32]; p < .05). No manuscript characteristics were associated with lower AAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of seven spine journals revealed a weak, positive correlation between AAS and number of citations. Number of references was associated with higher AAS. We believe these findings may be useful to authors seeking ways to maximize the impact of their research.