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.

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.

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."

Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology: A Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis from 2005 to 2022.

This study aimed to present a bibliometric and altmetric Analyses of the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (IJAAI). The citation performance and altmetric data were extracted from Scopus and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Analyses were done using SPSS 26, Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace. The results of the bibliometric analysis revealed that IJAAI had experienced respectable growth. Among the total citations, 4746 citations belong to the first decade (2005-2014) and 3,035 citations belong to the second (2015-2022). The findings demonstrated the significance of IJAAI among Iranian researchers. Pourpak, Z (66; 6.57%) is the top-producing author in IJAAI. The examination of research institutions reveals that the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) is ranked first. The most highly cited article in IJAAI over the past 18 years is a review article which has received 138 citations. IJAAI is ranked first at the citing source and journal level, with the most citations (249 citations) to IJAAI. Iran has collaborated with 13 other countries. Overall, the analysis of co-occurred keywords indicates that IJAAI authors have used the following three high-frequency and important keywords: Asthma (162), Inflammation (48), and Multiple sclerosis (40). Co-citation analysis results demonstrated that a total of 6,718 sources were cited in this journal. The results of the altmetric analysis show that IJAAI has a reasonably low presence across various social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mendeley, news and blogs. This study aids researchers in exploring and identifying emerging trends in the fields of allergy, asthma, and immunology.

Impact analysis of primary and secondary research in radiology journals.

INTRODUCTION: Primary and secondary studies are considered the two major research categories. In this study, we examined the scientific and social media impact of primary and secondary publication types in papers published radiological journals during 2010-2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed publication type tags were used to filter original articles and systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) articles. Clarivate Web of Science was utilized to obtain a list of all radiology journals from the category "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging" in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Automated approach was developed for programmatic extraction of bibliometric and Altmetric yearly citations of each included article using Dimensions API and Altmetric API with Python. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the citation rates between primary and secondary research articles. RESULTS: A total of 96,684 published articles from 2010 to 2020 were identified and their meta-data collected. The mean 2-year citation count following publication year was 5.8 for primary research and 10.2 for SR/MA articles (p < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2020, the mean number of citations per SR/MA article was 51.3 compared to 30.5 per primary research article (p < 0.001). Mean Altmetric score was 8.2 in SR/MA compared to 3.7 for primary research articles (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Secondary research studies have been increasing in impact in both academia and social media compared to primary research. Our results highlight the importance and impact of systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles as a scientifically influential study type in radiology.

Análisis bibliométrico de las revistas oficiales de sociedades de medicina interna en Europa / Bibliometric analysis of the official journals of internal medicine societies in Europe

Introducción La bibliometría evalúa la calidad de las revistas biomédicas. El objetivo de este estudio ha sido comparar los principales índices bibliométricos de las revistas oficiales de sociedades científicas de medicina interna en Europa. Material y métodos Se obtuvo información bibliométrica de las bases de datos Web of Science (WoS) y Scopus. Se analizaron tanto métricas de impacto (Journal Impact Factor [JIF], CiteScore) como normalizadas (Journal Citation Indicator [JCI], Normalized Eigenfactor, Source Normalized Impact per Paper [SNIP] y SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) de las revistas para el año 2022, y se observó su evolución en la última década. Resultados Se evaluaron 23 revistas oficiales de 33 sociedades científicas. Ocho revistas estaban incluidas en WoS y 11 en Scopus. Las revistas mejor posicionadas en 2022 fueron: 1) European Journal of Internal Medicine, que ocupó el primer cuartil (Q1) de las métricas JIF, CiteScore y JCI, superando valores de uno en las métricas Normalized Eigenfactor y SNIP; 2) Internal and Emergency Medicine, en Q1 para las métricas CiteScore y JCI, y con valores >1 en las métricas Normalized Eigenfactor y SNIP; 3) Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, con Q1 en la métrica JCI; 4) Revista Clínica Española, con Q2 para las métricas JIF, CiteScore y JCI; y 5) Acta Medica Belgica, con Q2 en las métricas CiteScore y JCI. Estas revistas incrementaron sus métricas de impacto en los últimos 3 años, coincidiendo con la pandemia COVID. Conclusiones Cinco revistas oficiales de sociedades europeas de medicina interna, entre ellas Revista Clínica Española, cumplen altos estándares de calidad. (AU)

Introduction Bibliometrics evaluates the quality of biomedical journals. The aim of this study has been to compare the main bibliometric indexes of the official journals of scientific societies of internal medicine in Europe. Material and methods Bibliometric information was obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Both impact metrics (Journal Impact Factor [JIF], CiteScore) and normalized metrics (Journal Citation Indicator [JCI], Normalized Eigenfactor, Source Normalized Impact per Paper [SNIP] and SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) of the journals for the year 2022 were analyzed, and their evolution over the last decade was described. Results Twenty-three official journals from 33 scientific societies were evaluated. Eight journals were included in WoS and 11 in Scopus. The best positioned journals in 2022 were: 1) European Journal of Internal Medicine, which ranked in the first quartile (Q1) for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics, exceeding values of 1 in Normalized Eigenfactor and SNIP metrics; 2) Internal and Emergency Medicine, with Q1 for CiteScore and JCI metrics, and with values >1 in Normalized Eigenfactor and SNIP metrics; 3) Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, with Q1 for JCI metrics; 4) Revista Clínica Española, with Q2 for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics; and 5) Acta Medica Belgica, Q2 for CiteScore and JCI metrics. These journals increased their impact metrics in the last 3 years, in parallel with the COVID pandemic. Conclusions Five official journals of European Internal Medicine societies, including Revista Clínica Española, meet high quality standards. (AU)

Top-50 cited articles on cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the most highly cited papers in a given field can help researchers and professionals understand the milestones and research areas that are generating the most impact. This study aimed to identify and describe the 50 most frequently cited manuscripts on cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis. METHODS: We identified the 50 most cited papers (articles and reviews) on cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis from the MEDLINE database and indexed in Web of Science-Core Collection, analyzing their bibliographic and content characteristics. RESULTS: The most cited documents comprised 29 (58%) original articles and 21 (42%) reviews, the bulk of which were narrative reviews (n = 17), with a negligible presence of other types of reviews with high-level scientific evidence. Six journals published 42% of the articles. In addition to the USA, Mexico and Peru were prominent countries of origin among leading researchers. The main research topics were the central nervous system and epilepsy on the one hand, and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches on the other. CONCLUSION: Our findings shed light on the dissemination of knowledge about cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis in recent decades, identifying the most highly cited contributions that have driven research in the field.