The Worldwide Influence of Social Media on Cervical Spine Literature

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.

The correlation between altmetric score and traditional measures of article impact for studies pertaining to spine trauma

PURPOSE

It is becoming increasingly common for researchers to share scientific literature via social media. Traditional bibliometrics have long been utilized to measure a study's academic impact, but they fail to capture the impact generated through social media sharing. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists.

METHODS

We identified the five highest-rated spine-specific and five highest-rated general orthopedic journals by Scopus CiteScore 2020. We then identified all the spine trauma studies across a 5-year span (2016-2020) within these journals and compared AAS with traditional bibliometrics using Independent t-tests and Pearson's correlational analyses.

RESULTS

No statistically significant relationships were identified between AAS and traditional bibliometrics for articles pertaining to spine trauma: Level of Evidence (R = - 0.02, p = 0.34), H-Index Primary Author (R =  < - 0.01, p = 0.50), H-Index Senior Author (R = - 0.04, p = 0.24), and Number of Citations (R = 0.01, p = 0.40). The top five articles by AAS include those pertaining to motorcycle injuries (AAS = 687), orthosis in thoracolumbar fractures (AAS = 199), golfing injuries (AAS = 166), smartphone-based teleradiology (AAS = 41), and auto racing injuries (AAS = 39).

CONCLUSION

The lack of overlap between these types of metrics suggests that AAS or similar alternative metrics should be used to measure an article's social impact. The social impact of an article should likewise be a factor in determining an article's overall impact along with its academic impact as measured by bibliometrics.

The correlation between altmetric score and traditional measures of article impact for studies published within the Surgeon Journal

Alternative metrics, or altmetrics, have emerged as a promising tool for measuring the social impact of research, which is increasingly important in today's digital and social media-driven world. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists. The purpose of this article was to retrospectively review articles published in the Surgeon Journal from 2003 to 2020 to compare AAS with bibliometric parameters using an Independent t-test and Pearson's correlation analysis. There were statistically significant weakly positive relationships between AAS and sample size, number of reads, and number of citations. There was no statistically significant relationship between AAS and number of authors, H-index, or level of evidence. This study highlights the potential value of altmetrics by measuring the social impact of research as altmetrics can provide valuable information not captured by traditional metrics. It is currently unclear what the optimal balance of social and academic impact is in evaluating research impact and how altmetrics can be integrated into existing research frameworks.