Factors associated with citation rate of randomised controlled trials in physiotherapy

Mapping the field of physical therapy and identification of the leading active producers. A bibliometric analysis of the period 2000- 2018

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were: 1) Describe the thematic structure and evolution of the field of physical therapy; 2) identify the main research producers (i.e. countries and institutions); and 3) compare their research output and citation impact.

METHODS

Papers related to physical therapy indexed in Web of Science (2000-2018) were identified to delineate the field, using keywords, journals, and citation networks. VOSviewer software, advanced bibliometric text mining, and visualization techniques were used to evaluate the thematic structure. We collected data about the country and institutional affiliation of all the authors and calculated production and citation impact indicators.

RESULTS

85,697 papers were analyzed. Eleven thematic clusters were identified: 1) "health care and education"; 2) "biomechanics"; 3) "psychosocial, chronic pain and quality of life outcomes"; 4) "evidence-based physical therapy research methods"; 5) "traumatology and orthopedics"; 6) "neurological rehabilitation"; 7) "psychometrics and cross-cultural adaptation"; 8) "gait-balance analysis and Parkinson's disease"; 9) "exercise"; 10) "respiratory physical therapy"; and 11) "back pain." The United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia were the most productive countries. Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden had the highest citation impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Our bibliometric visualization approach makes it possible to comprehensively study the thematic structure of physical therapy. The ranking of producers has evolved and now includes China and Brazil. High research production does not imply a high citation impact.

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.

Determinants of societal and academic recognition: Evidence from randomised controlled trials

Given the increasing importance of recognition in academia and the vital role of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in medical research and clinical decisions, this study verifies how RCTs’ academic and societal impacts are affected by visibility factors, subjects and methodological validity. This study concentrated on a sample of 446 RCTs indexed in Scopus and evaluated by Cochrane reviewers in terms of their methodological validity. The altmetrics, bibliometric and bibliographical information were extracted from Altmetric.com and Scopus, and the contributing countries’ development ranks were obtained from the United Nations Development report. The linear regression analyses revealed that citations and altmetrics depend on some subjects. They are also affected by publication year and journals’ previous reputation. Citations are also affected by keyword counts and reference counts. Keyword counts and contributing countries’ developmental rank also predict the tweet counts. While none of the methodological validity dimensions were found to predict citations, ‘Incomplete Outcome Data’ and ‘Random Sequence Generation’ significantly, though slightly, affect Mendeley Readership and tweets, respectively. By confirming the dependence of RCTs’ recognition on some methodological validity features and attention-inducing characteristics, the study provides further evidence on the interaction of quality and visibility dynamisms in the recognition network and the complementary role of societal mentions for academic citation.

Publication productivity of Allied Health Professions in an Italian Local Health Authority: prevalence and bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK

Despite Allied Health Professions (AHPs) represent a substantial part of workforce within the health system and they might give a relevant contribution to research, literature on publication productivity of AHPs working in non-research/academic institutions is scarce. The aim of this investigation was to provide point prevalence of AHPs working in a non- research/academic setting who have written at least one article published in indexed journals, in order to describe their scientific productivity.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out of AHPs working in large Local Health Authority in Italy, who published in journals indexed in Scopus and/or PubMed. H-index, publications and citations number, journal name, publication year, and journal Impact Factor were extracted.

RESULTS

Fifty-two AHP workers were identified as authors, having published 105 articles between 1993 and 2019. The number of papers increased over the years (p < .001). Published papers in journals with Impact Factor were 67.6% (n = 71) of the total, with a median Impact Factor = 2.676 (range = 0.583 - 59.102). The median number of citations was 4 (range = 0 - 99). The prevalence among units ranged from 0.8% to 5.0%, 2.9% in the whole department. There were not significant differences in number of articles (p = .138), citations received (p = .337), and H-Index (p = .661) among units.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Local Health Authority under investigation, publication productivity of AHPs workers was found to be low, although it is increasing over time, with no significant differences among units. Further investigations should be carried out to link these results with authors' information and organizational characteristics to study the relationship between authors' profiles and publication productivity.

What makes a great clinical trial in physiotherapy?

Objective: To identify common characteristics of landmark physiotherapy clinical trials.Methods: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) top five trials were compared to 91 physiotherapy trials published in top medical journals and 99 trials randomly selected from PEDro on the following characteristics: PEDro score, sample size, number of trial sites, use of prospective registration, positive or negative trial, citations, citations in guidelines, Altmetric score, impact factor, publications and citations of first and last author, and PEDro codes (sub-discipline, topic, problem, therapy, and body part). Trials were published from 2014 to 2019. One-way independent ANOVA and Chi-squared test evaluated between-group differences.Results: Compared to a random sample of physiotherapy trials, the PEDro top five trials and trials in top medical journals have higher PEDro scores, larger sample sizes, more study sites, more citations (including in guidelines), higher Altmetric scores, more likely to be prospectively registered, less likely to be positive trials, and have first and last authors with more citations and publications. The problem was the only PEDro code was distributed differently across the trial groups.Conclusion: The PEDro top five trials and physiotherapy trials published in the top medical journals have characteristics that may inform the design, conduct, and reporting of future physiotherapy trials.