Analysis of Production, Impact, and Scientific Collaboration on Difficult Airway Through the Web of Science and Scopus (1981–2013)

García-Aroca, Miguel Ángel; Dominique, Andrés Pandiella; Suay, R. Navarro; Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo; Granda‐Orive, José Ignacio de; Anguita-Rodríguez, Francisco; López-García, Andrés

doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002058

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results present the most complete picture of airway management research and some of our findings are in contrast with other published work. García‐Aroca et al recently conducted a bibliometric assessment of difficult airway research, and similarly found a year‐on‐year increase in the number of publications, as well as further support that Anaesthesia as a journal is a publishing leader in this field . However, they reported a much lower annual publication rate than our results revealed, and this was likely due to a much narrower search strategy than we have used in this current study .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Airway management research: a systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent controversy regarding the ethics of conducting airway research in patients led to disagreements concerning the value and frequency of manikin-based investigation. However, no formal examination of the methodology of airway research has been undertaken. We, therefore, performed a systematic bibliometric review of airway management research to describe the conduct, quantify the subjects (patient vs. manikin vs. other), assess the reported outcomes and map global trends. We retrieved 1505 relevant studies published between 2006 and 2017, together recruiting 359,648 subjects, of which 341,233 were patients, the remaining being volunteers or subjects managing manikins, human cadavers, animals or bench models. There were 701 randomised controlled clinical trials (46.6%), 83 non-randomised experimental clinical trials (5.5%), 298 observational studies (19.8%) and 423 non-patient studies (28.1%). A total of 1082 studies (71.9%) were patient studies and 322 were manikin studies (21.4%). The total annual number of airway management studies increased over time, as did the annual number of patient studies, but there was no significant increase in the annual number of manikin studies over time. Of the patient studies, subject baseline characteristics were most likely to be ASA status 1-2 (n = 531, 49.1%), populations were most often elective surgical patients (n = 918, 84.8%) and the most common interventions studied were tracheal intubation (n = 820, 54.4%) or supraglottic airway device insertion (n = 257, 17.1%). There was a total of 77 different primary outcomes used in the included studies, the most commonly reported being success rate and procedure time. By understanding how and what has been previously studied these data can be used to form the basis for future priority setting exercises, core outcome set development, and could inform strategy on the future directions of airway management research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Airway management research: a systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, further analysis using multivariate analysis model did not show significant relationships at different subgroups. While Figg et al 86 reported that there is a correlation between the number of authors and the number of times an article is cited by other researchers, the work of García-Aroca et al 87 showed that publishing in English in certain journals and collaborating with certain authors and institutes increase the visibility of the manuscripts published on the subject. Therefore, it is the quality of collaboration rather than the absolute number of these parameters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-cited articles in medical professionalism: a bibliometric analysis versus altmetric scores

Azer¹,

Azer

2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCitation counts of articles have been used to measure scientific outcomes and assess suitability for grant applications. However, citation counts are not without limitations. With the rise of social media, altmetric scores may provide an alternative assessment tool.ObjectivesThe aims of the study were to assess the characteristics of highly cited articles in medical professionalism and their altmetric scores.MethodsThe Web of Science was searched for top-cited articles in medical professionalism, and the characteristics of each article were identified. The altmetric database was searched to identify report for each identified article. A model to assess the relationship between the number of citations and each of the key characteristics as well as altmetric scores was developed.ResultsNo correlations were found between the number of citations and number of years since publication (p=0.192), number of institutes (p=0.081), number of authors (p=0.270), females in authorship (p=0.150) or number of grants (p=0.384). The altmetric scores varied from 0 to 155, total=806, median=5.0, (IQR=20). Twitter (54%) and Mendeley (62%) were the most popular altmetric resources. No correlation was found between the number of citations and the altmetric scores (p=0.661). However, a correlation was found for articles published in 2007 and after (n=17, p=0.023). To further assess these variables, a model was developed using multivariate analysis; did not show significant differences across subgroups. The topics covered were learning and teaching professionalism, curriculum issues, professional and unprofessional behaviour.ConclusionsAltmetric scores of articles were significantly correlated with citations counts for articles published in 2007 and after. Highly cited articles were produced mainly by the USA, Canada and the UK. The study reflects the emerging role of social media in research dissemination. Future studies should investigate the specific features of highly cited articles and factors reinforcing distribution of research data among scholars and non-scholars.

show abstract

“…The question that can be raised in this regard is: are we expecting an increase in number of citations as the number of authors or the number institutes involved increased? The work of García-Aroca et al 78 shows that collaboration between authors increases their impact and increases citation rates. However, they showed that publishing in English in certain journals and collaborating with certain authors and institutes increase the visibility of the manuscripts published on the subject.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What can we learn from top-cited articles in inflammatory bowel disease? A bibliometric analysis and assessment of the level of evidence

Azer

2018

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectivesDespite increasing number of publications in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), no bibliometric analysis has been conducted to evaluate the significance of highly cited articles. Our objectives were to identify the top-cited articles in IBD, assessing their characteristics and determining the quality of evidence provided by these articles.Design and outcome measuresIBD and related terms were used in searching the Web of Science to identify English language articles. The 50 top-cited articles were analysed by year, journal impact factor (JIF), authorship, females in authorship, institute, country and grants received. The level of evidence was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines.ResultsThe number of citations varied from 871 to 3555 with a total of 74 638, and a median 1339.50 (IQR=587). No correlations were found between the number of citations and number of years since publication (r=0.042, p=0.771), JIF (r=0.186, p=0.196), number of authors (r=0.061, p=0.674), females in authorship (r=0.064, p=0.661), number of institutes (r=0.076, p=0.602), number of countries (r=0.101, p=0.483) or number of grants (r=−0.015, p=0.915). The first authors were from the USA (n=24), the UK (n=6), Germany (n=5), France (n=5), Belgium (n=3) and Canada (n=3). The levels of evidence were 12 articles at level 1b, 9 articles at level 3a and 15 articles at level 3b and fewer were at other levels.ConclusionsResearch papers represented 66% of articles. The majority of items have reasonably high levels of evidence, which may have contributed to the higher number of citations. The study also shows a gender gap in authorship in this area.

show abstract

Analysis of Production, Impact, and Scientific Collaboration on Difficult Airway Through the Web of Science and Scopus (1981–2013)

Cited by 18 publications

References 38 publications

Airway management research: a systematic review

Airway management research: a systematic review

Top-cited articles in medical professionalism: a bibliometric analysis versus altmetric scores

What can we learn from top-cited articles in inflammatory bowel disease? A bibliometric analysis and assessment of the level of evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About