Research interest on dental sealant in dentistry based on the 100 most cited articles: bibliometric analysis.

The aim of this study was to identify and analyze the characteristics of the 100 most cited articles about dental sealants (DS) in dentistry. In September 2023, a search was performed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS-CC) database. The following information was extracted from each article: number and density of citations, year of publication, authorship, journal, impact factor, keywords, study design, theme, continent, country, and institution. The citations of the WoS-CC were compared with those of the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. The VOSviewer software was used to generate collaborative networks. The number of citations ranged from 33 to 205. The articles were published between 1961 and 2016. Buonocore MG (7%) was the most prominent author among the most cited. The Journal of the American Dental Association was the most frequent journal (25%) and Journal of Dental Research (7.6) had the highest impact factor. Most studies had interventional (41%) and laboratory (31%) designs, mainly addressing DS effectiveness in the prevention and control of dental caries (86%). There was a predominance of publications from North America (46%) and the USA was the country with the highest number of articles (44%). The most frequent institutions were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) and the University of Rochester (USA) (6% each). "Retention" was the most frequent keyword. In conclusion, the 100 most cited articles were mostly interventional and laboratory studies, addressing the retention and efficacy of DS. Most of the articles were concentrated in North America and Europe, demonstrating a little collaboration from other continents.

Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the citation impact and characteristics of Canadian primary care researchers and research publications. DESIGN: Citation analysis. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 266 established Canadian primary care researchers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 50 most cited primary care researchers in Canada were identified by analyzing data from the Scopus database. Various parameters, including the number of publications and citations, research themes, Scopus h index, content analysis, journal impact factors, and field-weighted citation impact for their publications, were assessed. Information about the characteristics of these researchers was collected using the Google search engine. RESULTS: On average, the 50 most cited primary care researchers produced 51.1 first-author publications (range 13 to 249) and were cited 1864.32 times (range 796 to 9081) over 29 years. Twenty-seven publications were cited more than 500 times. More than half of the researchers were men (60%). Most were clinician scientists (86%) with a primary academic appointment in family medicine (86%) and were affiliated with 5 universities (74%). Career duration was moderately associated with the number of first-author publications (0.35; P=.013). Most research focused on family practice, while some addressed health and health care issues (eg, continuing professional education, pharmaceutical policy). CONCLUSION: Canada is home to a cadre of primary care researchers who are highly cited in the medical literature, suggesting that their work is of high quality and relevance. Building on this foundation, further investments in primary care research could accelerate needed improvements in Canadian primary care policy and practice.

Sex and gender-based analysis and diversity metric reporting in acute care trials published in high-impact journals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome. DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials. RESULTS: We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022282565.

Medical researchers' perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Japanese medical academia continues to depend on quantitative indicators, contrary to the general trend in research evaluation. To understand this situation better and facilitate discussion, this study aimed to examine how Japanese medical researchers perceive quantitative indicators and qualitative factors of research evaluation and their differences by the researchers' characteristics. DESIGN: We employed a web-based cross-sectional survey and distributed the self-administered questionnaire to academic society members via the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences. PARTICIPANTS: We received 3139 valid responses representing Japanese medical researchers in any medical research field (basic, clinical and social medicine). OUTCOMES: The subjective importance of quantitative indicators and qualitative factors in evaluating researchers (eg, the journal impact factor (IF) or the originality of the research topic) was assessed on a four-point scale, with 1 indicating 'especially important' and 4 indicating 'not important'. The attitude towards various opinions in quantitative and qualitative research evaluation (eg, the possibility of research misconduct or susceptibility to unconscious bias) was also evaluated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1, 'strongly agree', to 4, 'completely disagree'. RESULTS: Notably, 67.4% of the medical researchers, particularly men, younger and basic medicine researchers, responded that the journal IF was important in researcher evaluation. Most researchers (88.8%) agreed that some important studies do not get properly evaluated in research evaluation using quantitative indicators. The respondents perceived quantitative indicators as possibly leading to misconduct, especially in basic medicine (strongly agree-basic, 22.7%; clinical, 11.7%; and social, 16.1%). According to the research fields, researchers consider different qualitative factors, such as the originality of the research topic (especially important-basic, 46.2%; social, 39.1%; and clinical, 32.0%) and the contribution to solving clinical and social problems (especially important-basic, 30.4%; clinical, 41.0%; and social, 52.0%), as important. Older researchers tended to believe that qualitative research evaluation was unaffected by unconscious bias. CONCLUSION: Despite recommendations from the Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto to de-emphasise quantitative indicators, this study found that Japanese medical researchers have actually tended to prioritise the journal IF and other quantitative indicators based on English-language publications in their research evaluation. Therefore, constantly reviewing the research evaluation methods while respecting the viewpoints of researchers from different research fields, generations and genders is crucial.

Does Reader Engagement with Neurosurgery Journal Websites Correlate with the Number of Citations Received by Articles?

BACKGROUND: Medicine has begun adapting to new information-sharing paradigms in the hyper-connected social media era. In this milieu, the role of journal websites in the dissemination of clinical and research information needs to be reevaluated. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether reader engagement with neurosurgical journal websites, reflected by the number of article views and downloads, correlated with the eventual number of citations received by the articles. METHODS: The websites of all Medline indexed neurosurgical journals were screened to identify those that provided information regarding the number of abstract and full text views and downloads. Articles published in these journals between July 2010 and June 2011 were included in this analysis. Various article attributes were identified and the number of citations per article was obtained from Google Scholar. The impact factors of the selected journals for the year 2010 were obtained from the Journal Citation Reports. RESULTS: Twenty-two journals that had published 2527 articles were finally included in this analysis. The number of abstract views, full-text views, and downloads all correlated strongly with the journal impact factors in 2010 as well as the eventual citations per article. The number of article downloads independently predicted the citations per article on multivariate analysis. Neurology India had significantly higher article views and downloads but lower citations per article than the other journals. CONCLUSIONS: Readers were found to engage significantly with neurosurgical journal websites and therefore, open access to articles would lead to increased visibility of articles, resulting in higher citation rates.

What predicts citation counts and translational impact in headache research? A machine learning analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop the first machine learning models to predict citation counts and the translational impact, defined as inclusion in guidelines or policy documents, of headache research, and assess which factors are most predictive. METHODS: Bibliometric data and the titles, abstracts, and keywords from 8600 publications in three headache-oriented journals from their inception to 31 December 2017 were used. A series of machine learning models were implemented to predict three classes of 5-year citation count intervals (0-5, 6-14 and, >14 citations); and the translational impact of a publication. Models were evaluated out-of-sample with area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: The top performing gradient boosting model predicted correct citation count class with an out-of-sample AUC of 0.81. Bibliometric data such as page count, number of references, first and last author citation counts and h-index were among the most important predictors. Prediction of translational impact worked optimally when including both bibliometric data and information from the title, abstract and keywords, reaching an out-of-sample AUC of 0.71 for the top performing random forest model. CONCLUSION: Citation counts are best predicted by bibliometric data, while models incorporating both bibliometric data and publication content identifies the translational impact of headache research.

Mapping the landscape of medical research in the Arab world countries: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the productivity, performance, and impact of medical research in the Arab world countries. METHODS: We carried out a bibliometric analysis using Clarivate Analytics databases from January 2017 to March 2023. We reported research productivity, national and international research collaboration patterns, impact of Arab medical research output compared to the global average, top medical journals publishing Arab-affiliated research, and performance of the most productive Arab institutions. RESULTS: The Arab world contributed 2.72% to global medical research publication, with a citation impact of 11.98 compared to the global impact of 12.02. Qatar, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia led medical research publications per million population among Arab countries, ranking 26th, 36th, and 37th globally. Medical research publications increased by 87% annually from 2017-2022, with 70% of research originating from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. National collaborations accounted for 15% of Arab world publications, while international collaborations represented 66%. The median impact factor across the top 20 medical journals with Arab-affiliated authors was 5.14, with 50% being quartile one journals. The top 10 Arab-origin medical journals had a median impact factor of 3.13. Approximately 80% of the top 20 Arab institutions were academic, with a median publication count of 3,162.5 and a median citation impact of 14.5. CONCLUSION: The study provides insights into the state of medical research in the Arab countries, indicating room for improvement in the region's medical research.

The 100 top-cited articles in menopausal syndrome: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Significant scientific research has been conducted concerning menopausal syndrome(MPS), yet few bibliometric analyses have been performed. Our aim was to recognise the 100 most highly cited published articles on MPS and to analytically evaluate their key features. METHODS: To identify the 100 most frequently cited articles, a search was conducted on Web of Science using the term 'menopausal syndrome'. Articles that matched the predetermined criteria were scrutinised to obtain the following data: citation ranking, year of publication, publishing journal, journal impact factor, country of origin, academic institution, authors, study type, and keywords. RESULTS: The publication period is from January 1, 2000, to August 31, 2022. The maximum number of citations was 406 and in 2012. The median citations per year was 39.70. Most of the articles focused on treatment and complications. These articles were published in 36 different journals, with the Journal of MENOPAUSE having published the greatest number (14%). Forty-eight articles (48%) were from the United States, with the University of Pittsburgh being the leading institute (9%). Joann E. Manson was the most frequent first author (n = 6). Observational studies were the most frequently conducted research type (n = 53), followed by experimental studies (n = 33). Keyword analysis identified classic research topics, including genitourinary syndrome of menopause, bone mineral density (BMD), and anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) loci. CONCLUSION: Using bibliometrics, we conducted an analysis to identify the inadequacies, traditional focal points, and potential prospects in the study of MPS across current scientific areas. Treatment and complications are at the core of MPS research, whereas prediction and biomarkers have less literature of high quality. There is a necessity for innovative analytical metrics to measure the real effect of these papers with a high level of citation on clinical application.

How far has diabetes-related foot disease research progressed in Australia? A bibliometric review (1970-2023).

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a leading cause of the Australian and global disease burdens and requires proportionate volumes of research to address. Bibliometric analyses are rigorous methods for exploring total research publications in a field to help identify volume trends, gaps and emerging areas of need. This bibliometric review aimed to explore the volume, authors, institutions, journals, collaborating countries, research types and funding sources of Australian publications investigating DFD over 50 years. METHODS: A systematic search of the Scopus® database was conducted by two independent authors to identify all Australian DFD literature published between 1970 and 2023. Bibliometric meta-data were extracted from Scopus®, analyzed in Biblioshiny, an R Statistical Software interface, and publication volumes, authors, institutions, journals and collaborative countries were described. Publications were also categorised for research type and funding source. RESULTS: Overall, 332 eligible publications were included. Publication volume increased steadily over time, with largest volumes (78%) and a 7-fold increase over the last decade. Mean co-authors per publication was 5.6, mean journal impact factor was 2.9 and median citation was 9 (IQR2-24). Most frequent authors were Peter Lazzarini (14%), Vivienne Chuter (8%) and Jonathon Golledge (7%). Most frequent institutions affiliated were Queensland University Technology (33%), University Sydney (30%) and James Cook University (25%). Most frequent journals published in were Journal Foot and Ankle Research (17%), Diabetic Medicine (7%), Journal Diabetes and its Complications (4%) and International Wound Journal (4%). Most frequent collaborating countries were the United Kingdom (9%), the Netherlands (6%) and the United States (5%). Leading research types were etiology (38%), treatment evaluation (25%) and health services research (13%). Leading funding sources were no funding (60%), internal institution (16%) and industry/philanthropic/international (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Australian DFD research increased steadily until more dramatic increases were seen over the past decade. Most research received no funding and mainly investigated etiology, existing treatments or health services. Australian DFD researchers appear to be very productive, particularly in recent times, despite minimal funding indicating their resilience. However, if the field is to continue to rapidly grow and address the very large national DFD burden, much more research funding is needed in Australia, especially targeting prevention and clinical trials of new treatments in DFD.

Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion.

Multiple studies across a variety of scientific disciplines have shown that the number of times that a paper is shared on Twitter (now called X) is correlated with the number of citations that paper receives. However, these studies were not designed to answer whether tweeting about scientific papers causes an increase in citations, or whether they were simply highlighting that some papers have higher relevance, importance or quality and are therefore both tweeted about more and cited more. The authors of this study are leading science communicators on Twitter from several life science disciplines, with substantially higher follower counts than the average scientist, making us uniquely placed to address this question. We conducted a three-year-long controlled experiment, randomly selecting five articles published in the same month and journal, and randomly tweeting one while retaining the others as controls. This process was repeated for 10 articles from each of 11 journals, recording Altmetric scores, number of tweets, and citation counts before and after tweeting. Randomization tests revealed that tweeted articles were downloaded 2.6-3.9 times more often than controls immediately after tweeting, and retained significantly higher Altmetric scores (+81%) and number of tweets (+105%) three years after tweeting. However, while some tweeted papers were cited more than their respective control papers published in the same journal and month, the overall increase in citation counts after three years (+7% for Web of Science and +12% for Google Scholar) was not statistically significant (p > 0.15). Therefore while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientist's papers is likely not among them.

Analysis of 50 Most Cited Articles About Refractive Surgery From an Altmetric Perspective.

AIMS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate an Altmetric analysis of the 50 most cited refractive surgery articles in Ophthalmology journals and to compare them with traditional metrics. METHODS: The term "refractive surgery" was searched, using a time filter between 2010-2020 in the Web of Science core collection database. The 50 most cited articles between 2010 and 2020 were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed. The Spearman correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between traditional metrics and Altmetrics. RESULTS: The Altmetric scores of the top 50 articles ranged from 0 to 25, and the median Altmetric score was 4. The citation numbers of the 50 articles ranged from 83 to 523, and the median citation number was 119.5. The most cited article topic was "Toric Intraocular Lens"; the topics with the highest Altmetric scores were "Toric Intraocular Lens" and "Trifocal Intraocular Lens". There was no significant correlation between Altmetric scores and number of citations. There was a weak correlation between Altmetric scores and the average citation per year. CONCLUSION: The Altmetric score is insufficient, compared with traditional metrics, to show the scientific value of articles on refractive surgery. Altmetrics can be used to supplement traditional metrics.

Twenty-Five Years (Plus!) and an Impact Factor.

Professional Case Management Journal: has been published for more than 25 years. In those years, important content has helped build the foundation of case management itself. Through the years, the articles in this journal have been cited in other articles-and in other journals globally. Now this journal has been bestowed with an "impact factor."