WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Qualitative versus quantitative analyses

Subject matter predicts where top pediatric spine articles are shared: citations vs. social media

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review. The purpose of this study was to compare the top 25 articles on pediatric spine surgery by number of citations and Altmetric score. All published articles pertaining to pediatric spine surgery from 2010 to 2021 were assessed for: Altmetric scores, Altmetric score breakdown (e.g. Twitter, News), citation counts, and article topics. The top 25 Altmetric articles and top 25 cited articles were identified. Out of the 50 total articles, only 3 (6.0%) overlapped between the two groups. The top Altmetric articles had averages (mean ± SD) of 167 ± 130 Altmetric score and 66 ± 135 citations, while the top citation articles had averages of 22 ± 45 Altmetric score and 196 ± 114 citations. When evaluating article topics, articles on 'back pain' (36% vs. 4%; P  = 0.003) and 'backpacks' (16% vs. 0%; P  = 0.030) were published significantly more in the top Altmetric group, while articles on 'scoliosis' (93% vs. 36%; P  < 0.001) and 'growth friendly surgery' (24% vs. 4%; P  = 0.041) were published significantly more in the top citation group. The total number of citations and online mentions for both groups are presented in Table 2. The biggest differences were the top Altmetric score articles receiving greater percentages of Twitter mentions relative to overall mentions (87% vs. 57%). The most socially popular articles focused on back pain and backpacks, and the most cited articles focused on scoliosis and growth-friendly surgery. Twitter had the most mentions of all social media for both the top cited articles and the top Altmetric articles.

Evaluating Funding for Authors Achieving High Citations vs. Online Popularity

INTRODUCTION

The Altmetric score is a validated tool that measures online attention of scientific studies. A relationship between government/industry funding for authors and their study's citations have been previously demonstrated. It is not known whether funding is related to greater online attention. We hypothesize authors publishing studies achieving greater online attention (higher Altmetric scores) receive greater monetary support from industry while authors publishing studies achieving critical acclaim (more citations) receive greater monetary support from the National Institute of Health (NIH).

METHODS

Top spine surgery studies between 2010 and 2021 were selected based on Altmetric scores and citation number. The Open Payments Database was accessed to evaluate industry financial relationships while the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was accessed to evaluate NIH funding. Payments were compared between groups and analyzed with the Student t-test, analysis of variance, and chi square analysis. Alpha <0.05.

RESULTS

There were 60 and 51 authors with payment data in the top 50 Altmetric and top 50 citation studies, respectively, with eight authors having studies in both groups. Total industry payments between groups were not markedly different. The eight authors with studies in both groups received markedly more industry payments for consulting, travel/lodging, and faculty/speaking fees. Authors with articles in both groups (50%) were significantly more likely to receive NIH support, compared with authors of the top Altmetric articles (5%; P < 0.001) and top citation articles (12%; P < 0.001). Authors receiving NIH support received significantly less industry payments compared with authors not receiving NIH support ($148,544 versus $2,159,526; P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

These findings reject our hypothesis: no notable differences for industry payments and NIH funding between authors for top Altmetric and citation studies. Authors receiving funding from industry versus the NIH are generally two distinct groups, but there is a small group supported by both. These studies achieve both critical acclaim (citations) and online popularity (Altmetric scores).

DATA AVAILABILITY

Data can be available on reasonable request.

Translation and psychometric properties of the Persian version of the position on nursing diagnosis scale

Aim

To validate the Positions on Nursing Diagnosis scale developed by Lunney and Krenz (1992) in Persian language.

Design

Cross‐sectional survey.

Methods

A methodological study conducted in two stages of translation (by applying the forward and back‐translation method) and psychometric assessment was conducted in a western area of Iran. The scale was completed by 600 nurses selected by quota method from different wards of four provinces. Date of data collection is 1‐April‐2019 to 1‐Dec‐2019.

Results

The Positions on Nursing Diagnosis scale showed acceptable content validity with index of 0.97. The 20 items of the Positions on Nursing Diagnosis scale load on four factors. The confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated the good fit of the model's indicators. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the whole instrument was 0.85. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.86.