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

Azer, Samy A.; Azer, Sarah

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029433

Cited by 52 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twitter was the most popular social media platform discussed in correlational studies (21 of 44 studies) [ 16 , 17 , 32 , 34 , 38 , 42 , 45 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 68 , 69 , 72 , 74 , 76 , 78 - 80 ], followed by Mendeley (15 studies) [ 25 , 45 , 55 , 57 , 60 , 63 , 71 , 72 , 75 - 79 , 82 , 83 ]. In reference to the association between Altmetric scores and bibliometrics, the results were mixed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In reference to the association between Altmetric scores and bibliometrics, the results were mixed. No significant correlations were reported in 12 of 44 studies (27%) [ 25 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 55 , 64 - 66 , 71 , 77 , 83 ]; weak or moderate correlations were reported by authors in 13 of 44 studies (30%) [ 16 , 17 , 39 , 43 , 53 , 61 - 63 , 67 , 72 - 74 , 76 ]. Strong positive associations were reported by the authors of half (22) of the correlational studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

Bardus¹,

El-Rassi²,

Chahrour³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Academics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact. Objective The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis. Results Of a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research. Conclusions We have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

Bardus¹,

El-Rassi²,

Chahrour³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It means that if two authors of country A and B have co-authorship with the author of country C separately, about 65.5% is possible that the authors of countries A and B will have a co-authored together in the near future The USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands had the highest co-authorship with other countries and were the most productive countries. Azer (2019) also identi ed that the leader universities in medicine have located in same countries (27). We argue that based on the educational and scienti c background of the US, the UK, and the Netherlands in pioneering medical education research centers (16) the result of our visualization is rational.…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Visualization of clinical teaching citations using social network analysis

Hazrati

Bigdeli

Arabshahi

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to visualize the co-authorship networks and scientific map of research outputs of clinical teaching and medical education by Social Network Analysis (SNA). Methods We Identified 858 publications on clinical teaching through a systematic search strategy in the Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) and Medline (NCBI/NLM) through PubMed. Date of publication was limited to 1980 to 2018.The Ravar PreMap, Netdraw, UCINet and VOSviewer software were used for data visualization and analysis. Results Based on the findings of study the network of clinical teaching was weak in term of cohesion and the density in the co-authorship networks of authors (clustering coefficient (CC): 0.749, density: 0.0238) and collaboration of countries (CC: 0.655, density: 0.176). In regard to centrality measures; the most influential authors in the co-authorship network was Rosenbaum ME, from the USA (0.048). More, the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands have central role in collaboration countries network and has the vertex co-authorship with other that participated in publishing articles in clinical teaching. Nineteen subject clusters were identified in the clinical teaching research network, seven of which were related to the expected competencies of clinical teaching and three related to clinical teaching skills. Conclusions Co-authorship between clinicians and medical educator specialists need to be strengthened through research development policies, appropriate academic networks and use of encouraging grants. In addition humanitarian and clinical reasoning need to consider in education of clinical teaching to empower the scientific map from thematic aspects.

show abstract

“…In contrast, other studies in broader general medicine have identified correlational trends have been identified between Altmetric scores and citation scores (Azer & Azer, 2019). In delineating the impact of the constituent components of Altmetric scores, Twitter posts have been reported to predict the likelihood of an article in the Journal of Medical Internet Research being highly cited, within 3 days of the tweet (Eysenbach, 2011), and may be predictive of higher citation scores in psychiatry research (Quintana & Doan, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The Altmetric era in eating disorder research: Assessing the association between Altmetric scores and citation scores for articles in the International Journal of Eating Disorders

Karimipour

Sarkisyan

Corona

et al. 2020

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The dissemination and uptake of scientific findings is of critical importance. While broader research suggests that an article's Altmetric score may predict subsequent citation scores for scientific manuscripts, the potential relationship between online dissemination and the broader scientific uptake of findings has not been explored in eating disorder research. Method: We identified 310 manuscripts published between 2017 and 2018 in the International Journal of Eating Disorders, and assessed (a) Altmetric scores, (b) the composition of Altmetric scores (i.e., Facebook posts, Twitter posts), and (c) overall citation scores. Results: Higher Altmetric scores were associated with higher citation scores. Multivariate analysis of separate Altmetric components indicated a higher number of Facebook mentions was uniquely associated with higher citation scores. Discussion: Altmetric scores may offer a viable and relatively rapid metric of the likely uptake and impact of manuscripts. Ultimately, these findings represent preliminary evidence of the benefits of widespread dissemination of eating disorder research beyond traditional academic methods. Future research should focus on expanding our preliminary findings to include a larger examination of articles to show evidence for or against the relationship between higher Altmetric scores and higher citation scores.

show abstract

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

Cited by 52 publications

References 87 publications

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

Visualization of clinical teaching citations using social network analysis

The Altmetric era in eating disorder research: Assessing the association between Altmetric scores and citation scores for articles in the International Journal of Eating Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About