Research methodology used in the 50 most cited articles in the field of pediatrics: types of studies that become citation classics

Research designs of publications in radiography professional journals - A modified bibliometric analysis

INTRODUCTION

Evidence based practice relies on availability of research evidence mostly through peer-reviewed journal publications. No consensus currently exists on the best hierarchy of research evidence, often categorised by the adopted research designs. Analysing the prevalent research designs in radiography professional journals is one vital step in considering an evidence hierarchy specific to the radiography profession and this forms the aim of this study.

METHODS

Bibliometric data of publications in three Radiography professional journals within a 10-year period were extracted. The Digital Object Identifier were used to locate papers on publishers' websites and obtain relevant data for analysis. Descriptive analysis using frequencies and percentages were used to represent data while Chi-square was used to analyse relationship between categorical variables.

RESULTS

1830 articles met the pre-set inclusion criteria. Quantitative descriptive studies were the most published design (26.6%) followed by non-RCT experimental studies (18.7%), while Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) were the least published (1.0%). Systematic reviews (42.9%) showed the highest average percentage increase within the 10-year period, however RCTs showed no net increase. Single-centre studies predominated among experimental studies (RCT = 88.9%; Non-RCT = 95%). Author collaboration across all study designs was notable, with RCTs showing the most (100%). Quantitative and qualitative studies comparatively had similar number of citations when publication numbers were matched. Quantitative descriptive studies had the highest cumulative citations while RCTs had the least.

CONCLUSION

There is a case to advocate for more study designs towards the peak of evidence hierarchies such as systematic reviews and RCT. Radiography research should be primarily designed to answer pertinent questions and improve the validity of the profession's evidence base.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

The evidence presented can encourage the adoption of the research designs that enhances radiography profession's evidence base.

Drivers of citations in social pharmacy and practice research articles

BACKGROUND

Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy has been expanding in the last decade. The recently published Granada Statements offer key recommendations to improve the quality of research in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the factors associated with the citations of articles in the field of social, administrative, clinical pharmacy and practice research.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective, observational analysis of articles published in three leading journals. Per article Google Scholar citations was the dependent variable. Predictor variables were extracted from all articles published from 2013 to 2015. The dependent variable was dichotomized using sample's median Google Scholar citations. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of citations ≥ median.

RESULTS

The median number of citations per article was 17 (range 0-341), with a mean of 24.2 (SD 27.6). The number of references included in the articles (OR 1.03, CI 1.02-1.04), the year of publication (OR 0.31 CI 0.21-0.46 for articles published 2015), article social media mentions (OR = 1.01, CI 1.01-1.03 and OR 1.10 CI 1.04-1.18 for Facebook and X, respectively), the topic area of research namely pharmacy services (OR 1.65, CI 1.06-2.57) and medication adherence (OR 2.22 CI 1.13-4.33) were independently associated with article having citations ≥ median.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of references, the year of publication, social media mentions and the topic area of research, namely pharmacy services and medication adherence, were associated with citations above median in the leading journals of social and administrative pharmacy research. Authors may consider providing a thorough literature review in their articles, while researchers, editors, and publishers are advised to use social media to promote newly published work. This article complements the Granada Statements and may contribute to fostering wider dissemination of the discipline's outputs.

Methodological rigour in preclinical urology: a systematic review reporting research quality over a 14-year period

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence and trends of essential study design elements in preclinical urological studies, as well as key factors that may improve methodological rigour, as the demand for methodological rigour in preclinical studies is increasing since research reproducibility and transparency in the medico-scientific field are being questioned.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed was searched to include preclinical urological studies published between July 2007 to June 2021. A total of 3768 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data on study design elements and animal models used were collected. Citation density was also examined as a surrogate marker of study influence. We performed an analysis of the prevalence of seven critical study design elements and temporal patterns over 14 years. Randomisation was reported in 50.0%, blinding in 15.0%, sample size estimation in 1.0%, inclusion of both sexes in 6.3%, statistical analysis in 97.1%, housing and husbandry in 47.7%, and inclusion/exclusion criteria in 5.0%. Temporal analysis showed that the implementation of these study design elements has increased, except for inclusion of both sexes and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Reporting study design elements were associated with increased citation density in randomisation and statistical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of bias is prevalent in 14-year publications describing preclinical urological research, and the quality of methodological rigour is barely related to the citation density of the article. Yet five study design elements (randomisation, blinding, sample size estimation, statistical analysis, and housing and husbandry) proposed by both the National Institutes of Health and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments guidelines have been either well reported or are being well reported over time.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022233125.

Ten-Year Trends in Level of Evidence in Hand Surgery

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this study were to analyze the trends in Oxford level of evidence (LOE), LOE of most-cited articles, and association between LOE and journal impact factor (IF) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) over a 10-year period (2009-2018) in 3 prominent hand surgery journals, specifically HAND, Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) (JHS), and Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) (JHSE).

METHODS

All articles published from 2009 to 2018 in HAND, JHS, and JHSE were reviewed for assigned or available LOE. Data were pooled and analyzed for trends in LOE; relationship among IF, SJR, and LOE; and citation density.

RESULTS

A total of 3921 total publications were tabulated from 2009 to 2018, with the majority of studies being level V (1700, 43%) and fewer studies being level I (146, 4%). Over the 10-year study period, there was no significant change in frequency of level I studies for any journal. HAND trended significantly toward higher LOE, JHS trended toward higher LOE, and JHSE trended toward decreased LOE without significance. Among all journals, the annual number of articles and the average LOE were independent significant predictors of IF and SJR. Statistically significant correlations were found between citation density and LOE for JHS and HAND.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher quality evidence is becoming more prevalent in the hand surgery literature over the past 10 years. Annual articles, average LOE, and level I and II and level IV articles were significant predictors of increasing IF and SJR.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Platelet Derivate Uses in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

PURPOSE

Concentrated platelet derivatives (PDs) such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have been extensively applied in tissue engineering, and particularly in various fields of regenerative dentistry. The purpose of the present citation analysis was to compile the 100 top-cited articles on the PDs uses in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

METHODS

A cross-sectional search of the relevant studies in the Web of Science citation database was conducted to identify the 100 most-cited articles. All the included papers consisted of independent variables of this analysis. Covariates that were further considered were basic bibliometric indexes, such as publication year, publishing journal, authorship, institution and country of origin, study design, and field of study. The primary outcome variables were citation counts and citation density. A descriptive analysis of secondary outcome variables, namely bibliographic data such as keyword, abstract, title term co-occurrence analysis, thematic map and wordcloud analysis, was performed using the bibliometrix R and VOSviewer software.

RESULTS

The total citation count for the 100 most-cited articles ranged from 85 to 1821, with 2002 being the most productive year. With 15 articles, the Journal of Periodontology was the most represented journal, followed closely by the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Clinical Oral Implants Research. The United States published the largest number of papers. Original basic science research studies on implantology and biology dominated the top-cited list. Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews were adequately represented in the top-cited list. Platelet-derived growth factor and osteoprotegerin represented emerging minimally developed themes, while PRP, growth factors and fibrin, along with the applications of PRF in gingival recession and intra bony defects, were considered important motor themes.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provides a complete list and in-depth analysis of the 100 most-cited publications relevant to PDs use in oral and maxillofacial surgery, identifying the most important research topics, most impactful authors, institutions, and countries. Though PRP studies were leading the top-cited list, publications focusing on PRF pesented higher citation density values, indicating a continuously increasing citation rate.

Leadership through a gender lens: Disparities in Dental Research

This study aimed to analyze the 100 most-cited papers in Dentistry, with a focus on female leadership in dental research. Papers were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS- CC) in the category 'Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine'. Gender was assessed through WoS-CC, Scopus, ResearchGate, social media, institutional websites, and software that assigns gender according to first names (https://genderapi.io). Characteristics of authors in leadership roles were retrieved, such as affiliation, publication history, citations, H factor, and i500. The 100 most-cited papers in Dentistry were authored by 394 researchers, 326 (82.7%) men, and 68 (17.3%) women - there were 4.8 male authors for each female. Among the lead authors, there were 11.3 males for each female. Among female senior authors, there were 7 males for each female. Among lead/senior authors of the 100 most-cited papers (first and last authors, respectively), 18 were women. There was an increase in the participation of women in the top cited papers regardless of authorship role across the six decades, with a peak of two female authors in the first decade of the 21st century. For female authors in leadership roles, their publication history shows the time between their first and last papers in WoS-CC ranged from 4 to 42 years for lead authors and 1 to 39 years for senior authors. Women were found to be largely underrepresented as leaders of the 100 most-cited papers, highlighting pervasive gender inequalities in dental research publications.

Big splashes & ripple effects: a narrative review of the short- & long-term impact of publications supported by an NIH CTSA pediatrics program

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This review examines a promising new framework for analyzing outputs of pediatric research in the context of translational advancement. We demonstrate a method for evaluating the impact of an NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award's (CTSA) Pediatrics Program through publications that have emerged from supported research. The Georgia CTSA Pediatrics Program provides training, funding, and infrastructure to ensure that researchers have the resources to advance pediatric health. Internal evaluations found that research supported by this program is exceptionally impactful within the academic community and commands high interest within the lay community. Therefore, we examined the impact of this research in both traditional academic and broader community spheres using bibliometrics-the study of supported publications. Bibliometrics describe a pivotal stage in the translational process of bringing scientific discoveries to clinical/community use and include both academic citations and 'altmetric' or non-academic attention. These complementary approaches combine to shed light on the short- and long-term impact of the research on segments of the translational pipeline, including academic literature, community discourse, technological advancement, and public health policy.

METHODS

The authors identified a portfolio of 250 articles supported by the Georgia CTSA Pediatrics Program from 2007-2020. We utilized various bibliometrics to analyze both short-term attention, or 'splash' made by articles, and long-term influence, or 'ripples' made across both academic and public spheres.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

The short-term splash of the portfolio was indicated through publication in high-impact factor journals, peer faculty recommendations, and Mendeley readership, as well as by early altmetric attention in news stories, blogs, and Twitter posts. The portfolio's long-term ripples were demonstrated by high absolute and relative rates of academic citation and by downstream altmetric influence in public-facing documents, including Wikipedia articles, patent applications, and policy documents.

CONCLUSIONS

This article reviews a useful bibliometric methodology for illustrating the waves of impact made by pediatric research. Whereas splash provides a picture of early interest in a publication, a preliminary indicator of eventual utility and impact, ripples provide a measure of the cumulative influence of an article over time. Both reflect opportunities for a line of research to advance along the translational spectrum.

Social media attention and citations of published outputs from re-use of clinical trial data: a matched comparison with articles published in the same journals

BACKGROUND

Data-sharing policies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should have an evaluation component. The main objective of this case-control study was to assess the impact of published re-uses of RCT data in terms of media attention (Altmetric) and citation rates.

METHODS

Re-uses of RCT data published up to December 2019 (cases) were searched for by two reviewers on 3 repositories (CSDR, YODA project, and Vivli) and matched to control papers published in the same journal. The Altmetric Attention Score (primary outcome), components of this score (e.g. mention of policy sources, media attention) and the total number of citations were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

89 re-uses were identified: 48 (53.9%) secondary analyses, 34 (38.2%) meta-analyses, 4 (4.5%) methodological analyses and 3 (3.4%) re-analyses. The median (interquartile range) Altmetric Attention Scores were 5.9 (1.3-22.2) for re-use and 2.8 (0.3-12.3) for controls (p = 0.14). No statistical difference was found on any of the components of in the Altmetric Attention Score. The median (interquartile range) numbers of citations were 3 (1-8) for reuses and 4 (1 - 11.5) for controls (p = 0.30). Only 6/89 re-uses (6.7%) were cited in a policy source.

CONCLUSIONS

Using all available re-uses of RCT data to date from major data repositories, we were not able to demonstrate that re-uses attracted more attention than a matched sample of studies published in the same journals. Small average differences are still possible, as the sample size was limited. However matching choices have some limitations so results should be interpreted very cautiously. Also, citations by policy sources for re-uses were rare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration: osf.io/fp62e.