Predictors of Citation Rate in the Spine Literature

Survey Research Among Neurosurgeons: A Bibliometric Review of the Characteristics, Quality, and Citation Predictors of the Top 50 Most-Influential Publications in the Neurosurgical Literature

Survey research enables the gathering of information on individual perspectives in a large cohort. It can be epidemiological, attitude or knowledge focussed. Assessment of survey studies sampling neurosurgeons is currently lacking in the literature. This study aimed to highlight the characteristics, quality, and citation predictors of the most influential survey research studies published in the neurosurgical literature. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, the 50 most cited survey research publications were identified and reviewed. Data relating to the characteristics of the articles, participants and questionnaires were retrieved. The studies' quality and citation patterns were assessed. The median articles' age and publishing journal impact factor (IF) were 15.5 years and 2.82, respectively. Thirty-two (64%) articles were first authored by researchers from the USA while 28(56%) studies were focussed on specific disease management. The median number of participants and response rates were 222 and 51%, respectively. A full version of the questionnaire was provided in 18 (36%) articles. Only four (8%) articles reported validation of the questionnaire. The overall quality of reporting of the surveys was considered fair (based on good grading in five parameters, fair grading in one parameter, and poor grading in four parameters). The median citation number was 111. The citation analysis showed that the participant number, article age (≥15.5 years), and questionnaire category (surgical complications) were significant predictors of citation numbers. The citation rates were not influenced by the response rates or the journal's IF. In conclusion, high-impact survey publications in the neurosurgical literature were moderately cited and of fair quality. Their citation numbers were not affected by response rates but were positively influenced by the publication age, number of participants, and by novel data or the questions raised in the survey category. Surveys are valuable forms of research that require extensive planning, time, and effort in order to produce meaningful results. Increasing awareness of the factors that could affect citations may be useful to those who wish to undertake survey research.

Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the number of citations for Cochrane Methodology Reviews after they have been updated or co-published in another journal, and the effect of co-publishing the review on the co-publishing journal's impact factor (IF).

METHODS

We identified all Cochrane Methodology Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) before 2018 and searched for co-published versions in the Web of Science Core Collection database up to 16 August 2022. The included reviews were in two cohorts: those that had been published and updated in CDSR and those that had been published in CDSR and co-published in another journal. The primary outcome measured the citation number to updated and original reviews in the first five years after publication of the updated review, and assessed the citation number of co-published and non-co-published reviews in the first five years after publication of the co-published version. The secondary outcome was the ratio of an adjusted IF and the actual IF of the co-publishing journal.

RESULTS

Eight updated and six original reviews were identified for the updated cohort of reviews, and four co-published reviews were included in the co-published cohort. The original reviews continued to be cited after the update was published but the median for the total number of citations was non-significantly higher for the updated reviews than for their original version[161 (Interquartile range (IQR) 85, 198) versus 113 (IQR 15, 433)]. The median number of total citations [362 (IQR 179, 840) versus 145 (IQR 75, 445)] and the median number of citations to the review in the first five years after co-publication combined and in each of those years was higher in the co-published group than in the non-co-published group. One of the three journals that co-published Reviews in the first year and two journals in the second year had a lower IF after co-publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier versions of Cochrane Methodology Reviews continue to be cited after an update is published, which raises doubts about whether those citing are using the most recent evidence or are aware of the update. Co-publication facilitates broader application and dissemination of Cochrane methodology evidence.

How Does Open Access Publication Impact Readership and Citation Rates of Lumbar Spine Literature?

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of open access (OA) publication on citation rates and attention scores of literature related to lumbar spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

OA literature allows readers to view full-text manuscripts of research publications free of charge, however, OA publication is often associated with substantial fees for authors.

METHODS

The Altmetric database was searched for articles related to lumbar spine surgery. Title, journal, publication date, Dimensions Citations, Mendeley Readers, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), number of public mentions, and OA status were collected for each included article. The influence of OA status on Dimensions Citations, Mendeley Readers, and each individual component of the AAS was assessed. To control for journal influence, impact of OA on Dimensions Citations and AAS was separately assessed for each of the top 10 journals contributing the most mentioned articles. The top 25 most cited articles and top 25 articles by AAS were also characterized.

RESULTS

A total of 5245 articles were included, of which 2063 were published with OA and 3182 were not. OA status was a significant, independent predictor of AAS and Mendeley Readers (both P <0.001), but not Dimensions Citations ( P =0.422). OA status significantly predicted mentions in news stories ( P =0.003), Twitter posts ( P <0.001), Facebook posts ( P <0.001), and Wikipedia citations ( P =0.011). Of the top 10 contributing journals, OA status significantly predicted Dimensions Citations for European Spine Journal , Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine , and Neurosurgery ( P ≤0.005) and predicted AAS for Spine , European Spine Journal , The Spine Journal , Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine , and Neurosurgery ( P ≤0.017, all).

DISCUSSION

OA status appeared to significantly impact public attention scores, but not citation rates, although these effects did vary based on the journal in which articles were published. Authors may want to consider OA publication based on their target audience and the goal of their research.

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.

Predictors of Above Average 6-Year Citation Rates in Leading Spine-Specific Medical Journals

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of manuscripts achieving 6-year citation rates higher than the mean in spine-specific literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An article's citation rate demonstrates its contribution to academia and its quality. Predictors of citation rates have not yet been studied in spine-specific medical literature.

METHODS

Three leading spine-specific journals were identified by a weighted scoring system comparing various journal metrics. Research articles published in 2014 were evaluated from the following journals: Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Article features analyzed included journal of origin, number of words in article title, author count, degree of first author, conflicts of interest, quantity of contributing academic institutions, country of origin, study topic, study design, level of evidence, sample size, reference count, and citation rate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of above average citation rate at 6 years following publication.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 1091 articles. Spine had a significantly higher citation rate than European Spine Journal (P = 0.0008); however, no significant differences were observed between Spine and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies originating in North America (OR:1.44, 95% CI:1.01-2.01, P = 0.04), those with 6 ≥ authors (OR:1.72, 95% CI:1.29-2.30, P < 0.001), sample size >100 (P < 0.001), prospective case series (OR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.24-5.76), and retrospective case series (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.07-3.73) were independent predictors of achieving above average 6-year citation rates.

CONCLUSION

Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the highest 6-year citation rates of the top 10 orthopedic spine journals, with Spine being significantly higher than European Spine Journal. Studies originating in North America, those with six or more authors, sample sizes > 100, and those that are retrospective or prospective case series are independent predictors of greater citation rates at 6 years in orthopedic spine-specific medical literature.Level of Evidence: 4.

A Bibliometric Analysis of 4 Major Foot and Ankle Surgery Journals

Research publication is a central to the scientific process and comprehensive bibliometric analysis is a leading way to better understand trends within research. Currently, there are limited bibliometric analyses of literature pertaining to foot and ankle surgery. This study aims to quantify the volume of research and investigate what may affect publication and citation. Journals associated with the 3 major orthopedic foot and ankle societies (Foot & Ankle International[FAI], Foot and Ankle Surgery, and The Foot) and one podiatric college (Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery®) were evaluated from January 2009 to December 2018 using Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize article characteristics and regression modeling was used to determine factors associated with a country's current and future productivity and an article's citation rate. A total of 4994 articles were published over the 10-year period, with the largest contributor of publications being the United States of America (USA), who produced 2096 (41.8%) publications. Regression analysis found no association between a country's productivity and gross domestic product or population. There was no significant relationship between a country's baseline publication rate and future publication rate. The variables significantly associated with an increased citation count were; the number of years since publication, the number of authors, publication in FAI and if the article was a review. To our knowledge this is the largest bibliometric analysis of foot and ankle publications. The majority of research is being produced by the USA, but there are numerous complex factors associated with citation and publication rates. Further research is required to fully assess these factors and characterize the state of foot and ankle surgery research.

Publication Characteristics of Foot and Ankle Trauma Publications: A Review of Articles From 1997 to 2017

Background

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare publishing characteristics in foot and ankle trauma articles published in two subspecialty journals and two general orthopedic journals.

Methods

All trauma articles related to foot and ankle surgery published from five different time intervals over a 20-year period were collected and the following was analyzed: authorship, level of evidence, type of study, citations, and geographic region.

Results

Foot and Ankle International (FAI) had the highest percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in foot and ankle. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American and British volumes (JBJS(A) and JBJS(B), respectively) and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) articles had a higher percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in trauma.

Conclusion

Foot and ankle-trained authors are currently under-represented in foot and ankle trauma literature. As the field of foot and ankle continues to grow, it is important that the experts in the field are well represented in the literature.