Additional support for RCR: A validated article-level measure of scientific influence

Gynecologic oncology top-cited articles: an international analysis

The aim of this paper was to study the top-cited per year (CPY) original articles published in the leading subspecialty journals in gynecologic oncology and in the leading general obstetrics and gynecology journals. We used the Web of Science and iCite databases to mine the original articles and review articles in the field of gynecologic oncology in the following journals: Gynecologic Oncology, The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Obstetrics & Gynecology. Top CPY articles from the four journals were analyzed and compared in a two-time point analysis. A total of 23,252 original articles and reviews were identified. The 100 Top-CPY articles were published from 1983 to 2021. Seventy (70%) in Gynecologic Oncology journal, 20 (20%) in The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, eight (8%) in Obstetrics & Gynecology and two (2%) in The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The most common study methodology was observational studies (20%), followed by guidelines/consensus papers (19%). The most common study topic was ovarian cancer (41%). North America originating authors composed 62% of the top CPY publications, followed by Europe (21%). The most common country of authorship was the United States (52%) followed by Canada (10%). CPY were similar in the publications before vs. after 2014 (P=.19). Study designs, study topics and continent of authorship were similar in both periods. The proportion of multi-center studies was higher after 2014 (66.6% vs. 28.8%, P=0.002) and the proportion of open access publications was higher after 2014 (66.6% vs. 15.4%, P<.001). Funded studies were more common after 2014 (75.0% vs. 53.8%, P=0.028). Ovarian cancer is the top CPY area of research in gynecologic oncology. This field is leaded by authors from the United States with multi-center studies proportion increasing in recent years. It is important to promote further high-quality research in other countries to disseminate knowledge and equality.

Twitter Gynecologic Surgery Journal Club: Impact on Citation Scores and Social Media Attention

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of a Twitter-based gynecologic surgery journal club of articles published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (JMIG) on their social media attention and citation scores.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

N/A.

PATIENTS

N/A.

INTERVENTIONS

Comparison of citation and social media attention scores was conducted for all articles presented in the JMIG Twitter Journal Club (#JMIGjc), a monthly scientific discussion on Twitter of JMIG selected articles, between March 2018 and September 2021 (group A), with 2 matched control groups of other JMIG articles: group B, articles mentioned on social media but not promoted in any JMIG social media account, and group C, articles with no social media mentions and not presented in #JMIGjc. Matching was performed for publication year, design, and topic in a 1:1:1 ratio. Citation metrics included number of citations per year (CPY) and relative citation ratio (RCR). Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was used to measure social media attention. This score tracks research articles' online activity from different sources such as social media platforms, blogs, and websites. We further compared group A with all JMIG articles published during the same period (group D).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine articles were presented in the #JMIGjc (group A) and were matched to 39 articles in groups B and C. Median AAS was higher in group A than groups B and C (10.00 vs 3.00 vs 0, respectively, p <.001). CPY and RCR were similar among groups. Median AAS was higher in group A than group D (10.00 vs 1.00, p <.001), as were median CPY and RCR (3.00 vs 1.67, p = .001; 1.37 vs 0.89, p = .001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although citation metrics were similar among groups, #JMIGjc articles had higher social media attention metrics than matched controls. Compared with all publications within the same journal, #JMIGjc articles resulted in higher citation metrics.

Impact of National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration Tobacco Research Funding: A Bibliometrics Analyses

INTRODUCTION

Conduct bibliometric analyses documenting the output of National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulatory science (FDA-TRS) research portfolios.

AIMS AND METHODS

PubMed identifiers for publications between 2015 and 2020 citing tobacco funding by NIH and/or FDA were imported into NIH iCite generating measures of productivity and influence, including number of citations, journal, relative citation ratios (RCR), and comparison of research influence across Web of Science (WoS) disciplines. Coauthorship and measures of centrality among and between NIH and FDA-supported investigators gauged collaboration.

RESULTS

Between FY 2015 and 2020, 8160 publications cited funding from NIH tobacco-related grants, 1776 cited FDA-TRS grants and 496 cited Common funding (ie, both NIH and FDA-TRS funding). The proportion of publications citing NIH grants declined while those citing FDA-TRS or Common funding rose significantly. Publications citing Common funding showed the highest influence (mean RCR = 2.52). Publications citing FDA-TRS funding displayed higher median RCRs than publications citing NIH funding in most WoS categories. Higher translational progress was estimated over time for FDA-TRS and Common publications compared to NIH publications. Authors citing Common funding scored highest across all collaboration measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the high bibliometric output of tobacco research overall. The rise in publications citing FDA-TRS and Common likely reflects increased funding for TRS research. Higher RCRs across WoS subject categories and trends towards human translation among FDA-TRS and Common publications indicate focus on research to inform regulation. This analysis suggests that FDA support for TRS has expanded the field of tobacco control resulting in sustained productivity, influence, and collaboration.

IMPLICATIONS

This paper is the first effort to better describe the impact of tobacco research resulting from the addition of FDA funding for TRS in the past decade. The analysis provides impetus for further investigation into the publication topics and their focus which would offer insight into the specific evidence generated on tobacco control and regulation.

Guidelines to Analyze Preclinical Studies Using Perinatal Derivatives

The last 18 years have brought an increasing interest in the therapeutic use of perinatal derivatives (PnD). Preclinical studies used to assess the potential of PnD therapy include a broad range of study designs. The COST SPRINT Action (CA17116) aims to provide systematic and comprehensive reviews of preclinical studies for the understanding of the therapeutic potential and mechanisms of PnD in diseases and injuries that benefit from PnD therapy. Here we describe the publication search and data mining, extraction, and synthesis strategies employed to collect and prepare the published data selected for meta-analyses and reviews of the efficacy of PnD therapies for different diseases and injuries. A coordinated effort was made to prepare the data suitable to make statements for the treatment efficacy of the different types of PnD, routes, time points, and frequencies of administration, and the dosage based on clinically relevant effects resulting in clear increase, recovery or amelioration of the specific tissue or organ function. According to recently proposed guidelines, the harmonization of the nomenclature of PnD types will allow for the assessment of the most efficient treatments in various disease models. Experts within the COST SPRINT Action (CA17116), together with external collaborators, are doing the meta-analyses and reviews using the data prepared with the strategies presented here in the relevant disease or research fields. Our final aim is to provide standards to assess the safety and clinical benefit of PnD and to minimize redundancy in the use of animal models following the 3R principles for animal experimentation.

Association of literature metrics in gynecologic oncology with country classification by income level

Objective

Bibliometric literature in gynecologic oncology is limited. We aimed to study the association between the level of income of the country of authorship and citation metrics.

Methods

A retrospective study including all articles and reviews published during 1977–2022 in theInternational Journal of Gynecological Cancer(IJGC) andGynecologic Oncologyjournals. Country of origin was defined as the corresponding author’s address. We classified articles into groups by level of income of the country of origin, as defined by the World Bank. The primary outcome measure was the median number of citations per year.

Results

A total of 9835 articles were included in the analysis (IJGCn=3786 (38.5%),Gynecologic Oncologyn=6049 (61.5%)). There were 8587 (87.3%) publications from high income countries, 1134 (11.5%) from upper-middle income countries, and 114 (1.2%) from lower-middle income countries. There were no publications from countries of low income. Most publications originated in the United States with 4089 (41.6%), followed by China (n=730, 7.4%), Italy (n=533, 5.4%), Canada (n=467, 4.7%), and Japan (n=461, 4.7%). Over the most recent 5 years there was a decrease in the representation of upper-middle income countries and lower-middle income countries; 16.3% (91/557) in 2018 versus 9.1% (38/417) in 2022 (p=0.005). In a multivariable regression analysis that included year of publication, open access publication model, study being supported by funding, publishing journal, review article, and level of income, all factors were associated with high citation per year score except the income classification of the article’s country of origin (adjusted OR 1.59–1.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.30).

Conclusion

High income countries have a disproportionate representation in gynecologic oncology publications. After adjusting for confounders, the country’s level of income was not independently associated with a high citation per year score. This implies that the number of citations per year is not compromised by the country’s level of income.

The Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network: a model for clinical trial readiness

Background

The current road to developing treatments for rare diseases is often slow, expensive, and riddled with risk. Change is needed to improve the process, both in how we think about rare disease treatment development and the infrastructure we build to support ongoing science. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network (RDCRN) was established to advance the diagnosis, management, and treatment of rare diseases and to promote highly collaborative, multi-site, patient-centric, translational, and clinical research. The current iteration of the RDCRN intends to build upon and enhance successful approaches within the network while identifying innovative methods to fill gaps and address needs in the approach to the rare disease treatment development process through innovation, collaboration, and clinical trial readiness.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the productivity and influence of the RDCRN since it was first established 20 years ago.

Design and methods

Using a suite of tools available to NIH staff that provides access to a comprehensive, curated, extensively linked data set of global grants, patents, publications, clinical trials, and FDA-approved drugs, a series of queries were executed that conducted bibliometric, co-author, and co-occurrence analysis.

Results

The results demonstrate that the entire RDCRN consortia and network has been highly productive since its inception. They have produced 2763 high-quality publications that have been cited more than 100,000 times, expanded international networks, and contributed scientifically to eight FDA-approved treatments for rare diseases.

Conclusion

The RDCRN program has successfully addressed some significant challenges while developing treatments for rare diseases. However, looking to the future and being agile in facing new challenges that arise as science progresses is important.

Mandibular Bone Resorption Following Chin Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Background

Chin implants have a long history, and its usage may be associated with mandibular bone resorption.

Objectives

This report analyzed data on this topic from existing literature to evaluate the overall resorption rate and scientific impact in terms of citations.

Method

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify relevant publications. The search string was as follows: (chin) AND (augment* OR implant*) AND (resorb* OR resorp*) AND (bone OR osseous). A study was eligible if it recruited human subjects and reported resorption following any chin implantation based on radiographic examination.

Results

Twenty-eight patient studies were identified. Publication year seemed to have no effect on the mean depth of bone resorption and its prevalence as reported by the studies. The increased mean number of follow-up years seemed to have no effect on its prevalence but seem to be associated with deeper bone resorption. The majority of the studies had &lt;5 years of follow-up and reported a mean of &lt;2 mm of bone resorption. The most cited study had 69 citations. Citations rarely came from radiology journals. A limitation was that unpublished data could not be analyzed.

Conclusions

Mandibular bone resorption caused by chin implants of various materials is a common phenomenon. Its recognition and studies with a longer follow-up period should be further promoted.

Structure, function, and productivity from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Introduction:

Following inception in 2005 as a multiregional practice-based research network (PBRN), the “National Dental PBRN” expanded nationwide in 2012, and in 2019 implemented additional organizational changes. The objectives are to: (1) describe the new structure and function of the network; and (2) quantify its scientific productivity since 2005.

Methods:

A national Administrative and Resource Center is based in Alabama; regional and specialty nodes are based in Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, New York, and Texas. A Network Coordinating Center is based in Oregon. Studies are funded via investigator-initiated grants. Scientific productivity is assessed using specific metrics, including the Relative Citation Ratio.

Results:

To date, 58 studies have been completed or are in data collection or development. These studies have investigated a broad range of topics using a wide variety of study designs. Of the studies that have completed enrollment, 70,665 patients were enrolled, as were 19,827 practitioners (some participated in multiple studies), plus electronic records for 790,493 patients in two data-only studies. To date, these studies have led to 193 peer-reviewed scientific publications in 62 different journals. The mean (1.40) Relative Citation Ratio of Network publications connotes a greater-than-average influence in their fields.

Conclusions:

These metrics demonstrate that the PBRN research context can successfully engage practitioners and patients from diverse settings nationally with a high and sustained level of scientific productivity. This infrastructure has enabled clinical scientists in oral health and nonoral health topics and provided additional recruitment venues outside of the typical academic health center research context.

Root Canal Disinfection Articles with the Highest Relative Citation Ratios. A Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2019

The relative citation rate (RCR) is a normalized article-level metric useful to assess the impact of research articles. The objective of this bibliometric study is to identify and analyze, in root canal disinfection, the 100 articles having the highest RCRs in the period 1990–2019, then compare them with the top 100 articles most cited. A cross-sectional study was performed, and the search strategy ((Disinfection AND root canal) AND ((“1990/01/01”[Date-Publication]: “2019/12/31”[Date-Publication]))) relied on PubMed (n = 4294 documents), and article data were downloaded from the iCite database. The 100 articles with the highest RCRs and the top 100 cited were selected and evaluated in bibliometric terms. Among the 100 articles with the highest RCRs, there were no differences in the three decades for RCRs values, but there were in citations, being 2000–2009 the most cited. The USA was the predominant country (n = 30), followed by Brazil (n = 14). The most frequent study designs were reviews (n = 27) and in vitro (n = 25) and ex vivo (n = 24) studies. All subfields were well represented, although they varied over time. In 2010–2019, regenerative procedures and irrigation/disinfection techniques were predominant. Considering the RCR’s top 100 articles, 76 were common with the 100 most cited articles. Using the RCR metric allowed us to identify influential articles in root canal disinfection, a research field with topics of significance that fluctuate over time. Compared to citations, RCR reduces the time from publication to detection of its importance for the readership and could be a valid alternative to citation counts.

A bibliometric analysis of multimorbidity from 2005 to 2019

Context:

Multimorbidity is frequently seen in primary care. We aimed to identify and analyze publications on multimorbidity, including those that most influenced this field.

Method:

A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2005 to 2019 in the PubMed database containing “multimorbidity” or “multi-morbidity” identified with the tool iCite. We analyzed the number of publications, total citations, the article-level metric Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), type of study, and journals with the most cited articles.

Results:

The number of publications using “multimorbidity” has continuously increased since 2005 (2005–2009: 138; 2010–2014: 823; 2015–2019: 3068). The median number of total citations per article was 3. The median RCR was 1.04. Articles with RCR at or above the 97th percentile (RCR = 7.43) were analyzed in detail (n = 104). In 34 publications of this subgroup (33%), the word multimorbidity was used but was not the subject of study. The remaining top 70 publications included 32 observational studies, 22 reviews, five guideline statements, three analysis papers, two randomized trials, three qualitative studies, two measurement development reports, and one conceptual framework development report. The publications were produced by authors from 32 countries. They were published in 37 different journals, ranging from one to four articles in the same journal.

Conclusions:

We found a continuous increase in the number of publications about multimorbidity since 2005. However, our study suggests that the numbers should be considered only a general trend because multimorbidity was not the main subject in 33% of publications in a subgroup of 104 analyzed in detail.

Scientometric analysis of the Puerto Rico Clinical and Translational Research Consortium (PRCTRC) research publications, 2010-2018

We analyzed the publication productivity supported by the Puerto Rico Consortium for Clinical and Translational Research (PRCTRC) using the structured process of scientometrics. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the research and collaborations as presented in publications. Manuscripts published from 2010 to 2018 and that had the PRCTRC award number and a PMCID number were retrieved from the Science Citation Index database. Scientometric indicators included h-index (HI), average citation (AC), collaboration coefficient (CC), collaboration index (CI), and degree of collaboration (DC) analysis, and relative citation ratio (RCR) was done with Web of Science Platform, iCite, and Stata software. Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software was used to calculate the annual percent change (APC). From 2010 to 2018, 341 publications were identified with an average of 38 publications per year and a total of 3569 citations excluding self-citations. A significant growth (APC: 17.76%, P < 0.05) of scientific production was observed. The overall HI was 31, and the AC per item was 11.04. The overall CC was 0.82, the CI was 8.59, and the DC was 99.1%. This study demonstrates a statistically significant increase in the PRCTRC scientific production. Results allow for the assessment of the progress resulting from the provided support and to plan further strategies accordingly.

The NIH Open Citation Collection: A public access, broad coverage resource

Citation data have remained hidden behind proprietary, restrictive licensing agreements, which raises barriers to entry for analysts wishing to use the data, increases the expense of performing large-scale analyses, and reduces the robustness and reproducibility of the conclusions. For the past several years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis (OPA) has been aggregating and enhancing citation data that can be shared publicly. Here, we describe the NIH Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC), a public access database for biomedical research that is made freely available to the community. This dataset, which has been carefully generated from unrestricted data sources such as MedLine, PubMed Central (PMC), and CrossRef, now underlies the citation statistics delivered in the NIH iCite analytic platform. We have also included data from a machine learning pipeline that identifies, extracts, resolves, and disambiguates references from full-text articles available on the internet. Open citation links are available to the public in a major update of iCite (https://icite.od.nih.gov).

The relative citation ratio: what is it and why should medical librarians care?

Bibliometrics is becoming increasingly prominent in the world of medical libraries. The number of presentations related to research impact at the Medical Library Association (MLA) annual meeting has been increasing in past years. Medical centers have been using institutional dashboards to track clinical performance for over a decade, and more recently, these institutional dashboards have included measures of academic performance. This commentary reviews current practices and considers the role for a newer metric, the relative citation ratio.