Analyzing the relationship between Altmetric score and literature citations in the Implantology literature

Strategies to boost citations in maxillofacial surgery literature: A meta-data science analysis

In maxillofacial surgery literature, where innovation drives advancements in techniques and patient care, citations are particularly critical. The aim of this paper is to retrospectively review the correlation between various parameters and the number of citations. This study analyzed 47,572 articles across nine high-impact journals to identify evidence-based strategies for increasing citation counts. A separate bibliographic search on citation-boosting strategies included 109 articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Statistical analyses included Pearson's correlation, odds ratios, Chi-square tests, and linear regression, performed using RStudio. Key findings indicated that articles with four authors were cited significantly more often (OR = 2.31, 95 % CI: 1.89-2.74, p < 0.001). Titles with approximately 13 words optimized visibility (p = 0.007), and articles around six pages in length balanced depth and readability (p = 0.012). Regression analyses showed that colons in titles positively influenced citation rates (β = 1.42, p < 0.001), while hyphens had a weaker or negative impact in high-impact journals (β = -0.85, p = 0.039). English was the dominant language in maxillofacial surgery literature (99.36 %). Reviews were cited 2.5 times more often than original research articles (p < 0.001). This study highlights actionable strategies to boost citations in maxillofacial surgery literature, leveraging a meta-data science approach to provide evidence-based recommendations. However, it should be clear that statistical analyses do not imply causation, and these recommendations should not be considered a definitive guide to boosting citations.

Bibliometrics and altmetrics on halitosis: exploring the top 100 most-cited papers

Halitosis has a multifactorial etiology being of interest by different health areas. The aim of this study was to perform a bibliometric and altmetric analyzes of the top 100 most-cited papers on halitosis to provide a comprehensive view of their scientific and alternative metrics. This would give perspectives on citation dynamics and online attention of the research outputs. A search strategy was designed, tested and applied in the Web of Science database on August 1st, 2023. The 100 most-cited papers were selected by two reviewers. Data on title, year of publication, number of citations, authorship, journal title, study design, halitosis etiology and subject/field of the study or pathogenesis of halitosis were extracted from each paper. Altmetric attention score (AAS) for each paper was registered. Papers were published between 1972 and 2019. Most cited papers were non-systematic reviews (28%). USA was the country with the greatest number of publications (20%). Journals with the greater number of citations were related to dentistry. The altmetric analysis did not show correlation with the citation count but showed a few papers with elevated AAS and a good diffusion in social media. The level of evidence of the study design did not influence the citation number. This can indicate the need for citing studies with more robust designs in order to provide better scientific evidence of citations in epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis and treatment. Databases showed positive correlation among citation counts, but no correlation with the online attention.

Global research interest and publication trends on guided surgery in implant dentistry: A metrics-based analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital surgical guides improve precision by detailing the direction, position, and angle of implants, which reduces surgery time and complications. A bibliometric analysis of guided surgery in implant dentistry is lacking.

PURPOSE

The aim of this metrics-based analysis was to analyze the trends and key characteristics of articles related to guided surgery in implant dentistry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The search was conducted in February 2024 on the Web of Science. The main characteristics of the studies were extracted and analyzed. Collaborative networks were generated using the Vosviewer software program. Dimension was consulted to measure Altmetric data. Correlation among data was determined by using the Spearman test.

RESULTS

A total of 799 articles published between 1993 and 2023 were included. Most were case reports or series (n=26) using static guided surgery (n=672), primarily for dental implant placement (n=754). The studies typically employed a combination of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital scanning (n=316) for surgical planning. The most frequently used software program was coDiagnostiX (n=89), and the most commonly used guide type was the printed guide (n=161). The country with the most articles was the USA (n=137), though Europe stood out as the leading continent (n=398). The Vosviewer demonstrated strong collaborations among authors. According to Dimensions, significant mentions were identified in Mendeley, news outlets, and X.

CONCLUSIONS

An emerging trend in guided implant dentistry research was identified over the past 30 years through the use of software programs and 3D-printers for the fabrication of surgical guides. Europe showed the greatest interest in this topic, predominantly conducting research on static guided surgery for implant placement. Additional clinical studies and systematic reviews are needed.

Mapping the trends and impact of research collaboration between countries in oral implantology publications: A bibliometric analysis from 1999 to 2019

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Scientific collaboration provides a suitable strategy for enhancing the exchange of knowledge and technological development. However, the impact of collaboration in oral implantology research between countries and how it has been influenced by the income status of the country has not been previously evaluated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to evaluate how collaboration between countries affected oral implant publications and whether patterns of collaboration differ depending on the country's income.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Articles were retrieved from 7 well-established journals whose scope included oral implantology at 5 time points (1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019). Data were extracted, and descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed (α=.05).

RESULTS

A total of 1944 articles were included; of which, 27.5% presented collaboration between countries. In 2009, 2014, and 2019, collaboration between countries was more likely to occur than at previous time points (P≤.005). Corresponding authors with a higher h-index (P<.05) and authors from Europe and North America (P<.001) were more likely to establish international connections. The possibility of collaboration between countries was higher for animal studies (P<.001) and for articles published by Clinical Oral Implants Research (P=.026). Collaborations between high-income and upper-middle- or lower-middle-income countries were more likely to happen in 2014 and 2019 (P<.05), as well as when the number of authors was higher (P=.015), compared with collaboration between high-income countries. With regard to the continent, European articles were less likely to have collaborations with upper-middle- or lower-middle-income countries (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed that some parameters related to the study, authors, countries, and journals were statistically associated with the presence of collaboration between countries. However, the bibliometric parameters showed different trends when countries of different incomes established collaboration.

25 years of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR): A modern bibliometric and Altmetrics network analysis

INTRODUCTION

Since its establishment in 1999, the journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) has consistently disseminated notable clinical and translational research within the domain of oral implantology. As the journal approaches its milestone 25th anniversary, this study endeavors to systematically delineate the publication trends, level of evidence, and bibliometric indices characterizing the initial quarter-century of CIDRR's scholarly activity. Notably, the investigation adopts a contemporary methodology by incorporating Altmetric analysis, thereby enriching the evaluation with an assessment of the broader societal and online impact of the published research.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in SCOPUS and PubMed to access the bibliographic data of all articles published in the journal from 1999 to 2024. Additionally, Altmetric database was used to obtain social media attention scores (AAS). Journal's overall performance via impact factor and quartile range was assessed. Most cited papers were identified and the most prolific authors, institutions and countries and the collaboration networks among those were assessed. The level of evidence of all articles was determined based on Oxford level of evidence scale. All articles were categorized based on their major topic in the field of implant dentistry.

RESULTS

Throughout its first 25 years of activity, CIDRR published 1912 articles with an annual growth rate of 2.67% and consistently being ranked at Q1 quartile in "Dentistry (miscellaneous)" and "Oral Surgery" journal categories. When clinical studies are considered, level I and II evidence constituted 22.82% and 11.82% of all articles, respectively. Sweden, the USA, and Italy as well as Göteborgs Universitet, Sahlgrenska Akademin. and Malmö Högskola were the most prolific countries and institutions respectively. "Implant system/design/characteristics," "Bone Augmentation," and "Implant Prosthesis" were the top most investigated topics.

CONCLUSIONS

The examination of the journal's initial 25 years highlighted that CIDRR has surpassed similar dental research journals in publishing a greater number of high-level evidence articles. It also showcased diverse country- and author-collaboration networks. However, the journal's social media presence is still evolving. This article, presenting a comprehensive overview of the journal's scientometric and bibliographic activities, serves as a valuable reference for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders, offering insights into both traditional and contemporary perspectives.

Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: A modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping

AIM

To conduct a bibliometric network analysis to explore the research landscape of immediate implant placement (IIP) and provide insights into its trends and contributors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Scopus database was utilized as the bibliographic source, and a search strategy was implemented to identify relevant research articles. Various bibliometric parameters were extracted, including publication year, journal, authors, citations, and funding. The analysis involved examining authorship patterns, international collaborations, level of evidence, Altmetric data, and funding analysis.

RESULTS

We identified a steady annual growth rate of 6.49% in IIP research. The top three countries contributing to research output were the USA, Italy, and China. Prolific authors were identified based on publication and citation metrics. International collaborations among different countries were observed. The level of evidence analysis revealed that over 30% of the articles fell into higher levels of evidence (levels 1 and 2). Altmetric data analysis indicated no significant correlations between citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and conversely a significant association with Mendeley readers count. Funding and open access did not significantly impact the bibliometric indices of the papers.

CONCLUSIONS

The focus of research on IIP has been evolving as indicated by an exponential growth rate in this study. Only approximately 16% of the articles fit into level 1 evidence, therefore, emphasizing on higher quality level research study shortage in this field. Modern indices can be used as new bibliometric indicators as they also cover social media and online attention scores.

The online attention analysis on orthognathic surgery research

OBJECTIVES

Altmetrics is one of the fields of bibliometrics that seeks to assess the impact and interest of a given subject through Internet users. The aim of this study is to make an altmetric analysis of the orthognathic surgery literature.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Dimensions app up to December 2023. A list of the 100 most mentioned articles on the topic was compiled. A Google Trends search was performed with same strategy to visualize important data regarding internet search. Charts and tables were created using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer software to allow bibliometric visualization.

RESULTS

There was a very poor correlation between the number of mentions and the number of citations (r = 0.0202). Most articles discussed on technical innovations associated to orthognathic surgery, majority related to virtual planning (n = 26). Other topics considered interesting to internet readers were complications (n = 18), surgical technique (n = 14), and psychological aspects/quality of life (n = 13).

CONCLUSION

Online interest in orthognathic surgery closely aligns with the level of academic interest but is also influenced by factors such as location and economic status. The internet is a powerful tool for disseminating scientific research to a broad audience, making it more accessible and engaging than traditional academic channels.

The Association Between Altmetric Attention Scores and Public Engagement in the Medical Literature

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of social media and the associated increase in connectivity between scientists and the lay public, the Altmetric Attention Score has been created as a way to measure these interactions between scholarly publications and media dissemination. Little is known, however, whether these types of media exchanges measured by Altmetrics may serve as a proxy for public engagement. As such, we have sought to determine whether or not an association exists between Altmetric scores and public engagement, as measured by article citation in a health policy document.

METHODS

The top 100 highest scoring articles in the medical and health sciences with respect to Altmetric Attention Scores were selected from each of 3 y (2014, 2015, and 2016). Each article was then matched to an article from the same year and journal with the highest Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) for comparison. Bivariate analysis compared article groups with respect to citation in a public policy document, open-access status, and funding status, as well as Altmetric and RCR scores. A multivariable model was then constructed to identify significant factors associated with citation in a public policy document. Finally, a contour plot was generated in order to estimate the interaction between Altmetric Scores and RCR and their comparative effects on the probability of inclusion in a health policy document.

RESULTS

Of the 600 articles included in the analysis, 286 (48%) had been cited by a public policy article. The only difference that existed between the cohorts was for funding status, with 55 articles (40%) in the RCR cohort having received funding compared to 81 (60%) in the Altmetric cohort (P = 0.011). On bivariate analysis, both Altmetric (P = 0.0018) and RCR (P < 0.0001) scores were independently predictive of policy citation. In a multivariable model, the interaction between Altmetric Scores and RCR with respect to policy inclusion was significant (OR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.08-1.38) and a contour plot demonstrates that either high Altmetric score or RCR alone is sufficient to generate a high probability of policy inclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Scholarly article Altmetric Scores may serve as a novel means to explore public engagement in scientific research and health policy. In addition, journals that aim to impact public policy through article dissemination may benefit from engagement in social media avenues in addition to traditional citation pathways in order to encourage broader inclusion.

Impact of COVID-19 Dentistry-Related Literature: An Altmetric Study

INTRODUCTION

Scientific literature on COVID-19 has grown rapidly during the pandemic. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the popularity on the web of the available dental publications on COVID-19 and to examine associations amongst article characteristics, online mentions, and citations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Altmetric Explorer search was conducted for COVID-19 articles published in dental journals using 3 keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and pandemic. The following Altmetric data were collected: Altmetric attention score (AAS), mentions by news outlets, tweets, Mendeley readers, and Web of Science citations. Additionally, article title, type, topic, origin and open access status, journal title, quartile of impact factor (IF) distribution, and time lapse between COVID-19 pandemic onset and publication date were analysed.

RESULTS

In all, 253 articles published in 48 dental journals were eligible for the study. AAS was significantly influenced by article topic, type, origin, and journal IF quartile. There was a negligible correlation between AAS and Web of Science citations. Mendeley was the only Altmetric source highly correlated with citations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was substantial online interest in COVID-19 dentistry-related literature, as depicted by the AAS of the reviewed articles and social media metrics. Mendeley reader counts were highly correlated with citations, and they may therefore be valuable in research impact evaluation.

Evaluating the impact of a CTSA program from 2008 to 2021 through bibliometrics, social network analysis, and altmetrics

Introduction

We evaluate a CTSA program hub by applying bibliometrics, social network analysis (SNA), and altmetrics and examine the changes in research productivity, citation impact, research collaboration, and CTSA-supported research topics since our pilot study in 2017.

Methods

The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2021. We applied measures and metrics from bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics to the dataset. In addition, we analyzed research topics and correlations between different metrics.

Results

1154 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 53,560 citation counts by April 2021. The average cites per year and the relative citation ratio (RCR) mean of these publications improved from 33 and 2.26 in 2017 to 48 and 2.58 in 2021. The number of involved UNC units in the most published authors' collaboration network increased from 7 (2017) to 10 (2021). NC TraCS-supported co-authorship involved 61 NC organizations. PlumX metrics identified articles with the highest altmetrics scores. About 96% NC TraCS-supported publications have above the average SciVal Topic Prominence Percentile; the average approximate potential to translate of the included publication was 54.2%; and 177 publications addressed health disparity issues. Bibliometric measures (e.g., citation counts, RCR) and PlumX metrics (i.e., Citations, Captures, and Social-Media) are positively correlated (p < .05).

Conclusion

Bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics offer distinctive but related perspectives to examine CTSA research performance and longitudinal growth, especially at the individual program hub level. These perspectives can help CTSAs build program foci.

Altmetric Analysis of the Most Mentioned Articles Online in the Contemporary Craniofacial Surgery Literature

As online media acquires increased utilization as a means of disseminating scientific research, Altmetric analyses are useful to identify socially impactful publications and their characteristics. Accordingly, the objective of this investigation was to determine the most mentioned articles online regarding craniofacial surgery and compare these articles with their most cited counterparts. Using the Web of Science database, 7097 craniofacial surgery publications were identified. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and average citations per year (ACpY) were extracted, and articles were ranked by their social and scientific impact. Descriptive, comparative, and correlational analyses were performed to examine characteristics including AAS, ACpY, country of origin, journal, open access (OA) status, publication year, study design, and topic. The average AAS of the 50 most mentioned articles was 83.68 (SD±107.40), and the average citation count of the 50 most cited articles was 76.38 (SD±35.15). OA status was significantly more prevalent among the most mentioned articles (24.0%) relative to all articles (10.72%) and the most cited articles (4.0%). The most mentioned and the most cited articles primarily originated from the United States (64.0% and 38.0%, respectively), discussed topics related to the medical and surgical management of patients (48.0% and 58.0%, respectively), and were systematic reviews (16.0% and 28.0%, respectively). However, there was significantly more geographic diversity in the latter cohort. In summary, this comparative examination reveals important differences between the most mentioned and most cited articles, highlighting the distinct utility of AAS and citation count when evaluating research impact.

AI-SPedia: a novel ontology to evaluate the impact of research in the field of artificial intelligence

Background

Sharing knowledge such as resources, research results, and scholarly documents, is of key importance to improving collaboration between researchers worldwide. Research results from the field of artificial intelligence (AI) are vital to share because of the extensive applicability of AI to several other fields of research. This has led to a significant increase in the number of AI publications over the past decade. The metadata of AI publications, including bibliometrics and altmetrics indicators, can be accessed by searching familiar bibliographical databases such as Web of Science (WoS), which enables the impact of research to be evaluated and identify rising researchers and trending topics in the field of AI.

Problem description

In general, bibliographical databases have two limitations in terms of the type and form of metadata we aim to improve. First, most bibliographical databases, such as WoS, are more concerned with bibliometric indicators and do not offer a wide range of altmetric indicators to complement traditional bibliometric indicators. Second, the traditional format in which data is downloaded from bibliographical databases limits users to keyword-based searches without considering the semantics of the data.

Proposed solution

To overcome these limitations, we developed a repository, named AI-SPedia. The repository contains semantic knowledge of scientific publications concerned with AI and considers both the bibliometric and altmetric indicators. Moreover, it uses semantic web technology to produce and store data to enable semantic-based searches. Furthermore, we devised related competency questions to be answered by posing smart queries against the AI-SPedia datasets.

Results

The results revealed that AI-SPedia can evaluate the impact of AI research by exploiting knowledge that is not explicitly mentioned but extracted using the power of semantics. Moreover, a simple analysis was performed based on the answered questions to help make research policy decisions in the AI domain. The end product, AI-SPedia, is considered the first attempt to evaluate the impacts of AI scientific publications using both bibliometric and altmetric indicators and the power of semantic web technology.

Research Promotion is Associated with Broader Influence and Higher Impact of Plastic Surgery Publications

BACKGROUND

Social media has altered the mechanisms by which published research is disseminated and accessed. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of promotion on research article dissemination, influence, and impact in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

METHODS

All articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018 were obtained and reviewed to determine inclusion/exclusion and for the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), citations, relative citation rate (RCR), and 16 unique promotional tags (journal club, editor's pick, press release, patient safety, etc.) as indexed on the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery website. 1,502 articles were included in the analysis. Statistical analysis was completed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlations, and Student t-tests where appropriate with a predetermined level of significance of p≤0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 637 articles (42.4%) had a promotional tag, while 252 (16.8%) had multiple tags. Articles with promotional tags had higher AAS (30.35 vs 8.22; p<0.001), more citations (11.96 vs 8.47; p<0.001), and a higher RCR (2.97 vs 2.06; p<0.001) compared to articles without a tag. Articles with multiple tags had higher AAS (50.17 vs 17.39; p<0.001), more citations (15.78 vs 9.47; p<0.001), and a higher RCR (3.67 vs 2.51; p<0.001) compared to articles with only one tag. As the number of tags increased for an article, AAS (p<0.001), citation count (p<0.001), and RCR (p<0.001) likewise increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis strongly suggests that promotion of research articles is associated with significantly wider dissemination, broader visibility, and more subsequent citations in the literature.

Measuring the impact of COVID-19 papers on the social web: an altmetric study

Purpose

The rapid spread and severity of the coronavirus (COVID-19) virus have prompted a spate of scholarly research that deals with the pandemic. The purpose of this study is to measure and assess the coverage of COVID-19 research on social media and the engagement of readers with COVID-19 research on social media outlets.

Design/methodology/approach

An altmetric analysis was carried out in three phases. The first focused on retrieving all papers related to COVID-19. Phase two of the research aimed to measure the presence of the retrieved papers on social media using altmetric application programming interface (API). The third phase aimed to measure Mendeley readership categories using Mendeley API to extract data of readership from Mendeley for each paper.

Findings

The study suggests that while social media platforms do not give accurate measures of the impact as given by citations, they can be used to portray the social impact of the scholarly outputs and indicate the effectiveness of COVID-19 research. The results confirm a positive correlation between the number of citations to articles in databases such as Scopus and the number of views on social media sites such as Mendeley and Twitter. The results of the current study indicated that social media could serve as an indicator of the number of citations of scientific articles.

Research limitations/implications

This study’s limitation is that the studied articles’ altmetrics performance was examined using only one of the altmetrics data service providers (altmetrics database). Hence, future research should explore altmetrics on the topic using more than one platform. Another limitation of the current research is that it did not explore the academic social media role in spreading fake information as the scope was limited to scholarly outputs on social media. The practical contribution of the current research is that it informs scholars about the impact of social media platforms on the spread and visibility of COVID-19 research. Also, it can help researchers better understand the importance of published COVID-19 research using social media.

Originality/value

This paper provides insight into the impact of COVID-19 research on social media. The paper helps to provide an understanding of how people engage with health research using altmetrics scores, which can be used as indicators of research performance.

Predictors of societal and professional impact of Endodontology research articles. A multivariate scientometric analysis

AIM

To identify factors that are predictive of short-term professional and societal impact of research within the specialty of Endodontology, and to identify the top-10 articles that achieved the greatest societal impact and describe their characteristics.

METHODOLOGY

Research articles in the field of Endodontology published in 2019 were eligible for inclusion, with the sample identified using Medline. Following screening of titles and abstracts, bibliometric data of the identified articles were exported into a spreadsheet, where further data related to continental origin, type of article, type of journal (endodontic or non-endodontic) and grant-funding were collated, with additional data concerning presence of journal impact factor, citations, news mentions and Altmetric-tracked-mentions and scores compiled using Clarivate, Scopus, ProQuest and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, cross-tabulations and un/adjusted negative binomial regression models (P<0.05).

RESULTS

The search retrieved 30,443 articles; 951 were included for analysis. Most articles originated from Asia (43.2%) with over 51.5% of articles published in endodontic journals and 80% published in a journal with an impact factor. Over three-quarters of articles were primary research, 141 were grant-funded, 165 had a news mention, 338 achieved an Altmetric Attention Score and 808 were cited. The five-highest ranked articles were mentioned in general news bulletins, five of the top-10 articles were primary research and six of the top-10 were published in endodontic journals. The highest Altmetric Attention Score and citation count were 100 and 87, respectively. Adjusted models demonstrated that the type of article, publication in a journal with an impact factor, absence of grant-funding and coverage within general news bulletins predicted the Altmetric Attention Scores (P<0.001). Article type, publication in an impact-factor journal and presence of an Altmetric Attention Score were predictive of citations (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Article type and publication in a journal with an impact factor were significant predictors of both societal and professional impact of research articles within Endodontology in the short-term. Non grant-funded research and coverage in general news bulletins achieved greater societal impact, whereas an article achieving an Altmetric Attention Score was also strongly related to professional impact.

The Correlation between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Orthopaedic Literature

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and medical researchers increasingly turn to nonformal online platforms to promote research. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of online influence of research in real time. The objective of this study is to determine if AAS correlates with traditional bibliometrics in the orthopaedic literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From the 15 orthopaedic journals with the highest impact factor, the 10 most cited articles from each journal were reviewed for 2014 -2017. For each article, AAS was collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet application and citation count from SCOPUS. Journal impact factor was recorded using Journal Citation Reports. Statistical analysis included Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 600 articles were analyzed. A significant positive correlation was found between citation count and AAS for 2014 (r = 0.3188, p < 0.0001), and no correlation for 2015 (r = 0.1504, P = 0.0653), 2016 (r = 0.0087, P = 0.9157), and 2017 (r = 0.0061, P = 0.9408). There was no significant correlation between impact factor and AAS in 2014 (r = 0.4312, P = 0.1085), 2015 (r = 0.3850, P = 0.1565), 2016 (r = 0.1460, P = 0.6035) and 2017 (r = 0.0451 P = 0.8732).

CONCLUSIONS

AAS and traditional bibliometrics are currently not strongly correlated in orthopaedic literature. Citations take years to accumulate and AAS represents immediate influence of an article. An amalgamation of traditional bibliometrics and AAS may prove useful in determining the short- and long-term impact and influence of publications in orthopaedics.

Association Between Immediacy of Citations and Altmetrics in COVID-19 Research by Artificial Neural Networks

OBJECTIVES

Both citations and Altmetrics are indexes of influence of a publication, potentially useful, but to what extent that the professional-academic citation and media-dominated Altmetrics are consistent with each other is a topic worthy of being investigated. The objective is to show their correlation.

METHODS

DOI and citation information of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) researches were obtained from the Web of Science, its Altmetric indicators were collected from the Altmetrics. Correlation between the immediacy of citation and Altmetrics of COVID-19 research was studied by artificial neural networks.

RESULTS

Pearson coefficients are 0.962, 0.254, 0.222, 0.239, 0.363, 0.218, 0.136, 0.134, and 0.505 (P < 0.01) for dimensions citation, attention score, journal impact factor, news, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, video, and Mendeley correlated with the SCI citation, respectively. The citations from the Web of Science and that from the Altmetrics have deviance large enough in the current. Altmetric score is not precise to describe the immediacy of citations of academic publication in COVID-19 research.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of news, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, video, and Mendeley on SCI citations are similar to that of the journal impact factor. This paper performs a pioneer study for investigating the role of academic topics across Altmetric sources on the dissemination of scholarly publications.

Six Sigma in Health Literature, What Matters?

Six Sigma has been widely used in the health field for process or quality improvement, constituting a quite profusely investigated topic. This paper aims at exploring why some studies have more academic and societal impact, attracting more attention from academics and health professionals. Academic and societal impact was addressed using traditional academic metrics and alternative metrics, often known as altmetrics. We conducted a systematic search following the PRISMA statement through three well-known databases, and identified 212 papers published during 1998–2019. We conducted zero-inflated negative binomial regressions to explore the influence of bibliometric and content determinants on traditional academic and alternative metrics. We observe that the factors influencing alternative metrics are more varied and difficult to apprehend than those explaining traditional impact metrics. We also conclude that, independently of how the impact is measured, the paper’s content, rather than bibliometric characteristics, better explains its impact. In the specific case of research on Six Sigma applied to health, the papers with more impact address process improvement focusing on time and waste reduction. This study sheds light on the aspects that better explain publications’ impact in the field of Six Sigma application in health, either from an academic or a societal point of view.

Examining the Relationship between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Ophthalmology Literature for 2013 and 2016 Cohorts

Background In this study, we reviewed a select sample of ophthalmology literature to determine if there was a correlation between Altimetric and traditional citation-based and impact factor metrics. We hypothesized that Altmetric score would more closely correlate with impact factor and citations in 2016.

Methods Journal Citation Reports for the year 2013 was used to find the 15 highest impact factor ophthalmology journals in 2013. Then Elsevier's Scopus was used to identify the 10 most cited articles from each journal for the years 2013 and 2016. Metrics for all identified articles were collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet, and date of Twitter account creation was noted for journals with such an account. Altmetric scores, impact factor, and citation counts were tabulated for each article. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) determined correlation of independent variables (number of citations or impact factor) with dependent variable (Altmetric score). For our Twitter analysis, account age was the independent variable and calculated correlation coefficients (r) were the dependent variable. Proportion of variance was determined with a coefficient of determination (R 2).

Results This study included 300 articles, evenly split between 2013 and 2016. Within the 2013 cohort, three journals had significant positive correlations between citation count and Altmetric score. For the 2016 cohort, both Altmetric score and citation count (r = 0.583, p < 0.001) and Altmetric score and impact factor (r = 0.183, p = 0.025) revealed significant positive correlations. In 2016, two journals were found to have significant correlations between Altmetric score and citation number. Neither year revealed a significant correlation between the age of a journal's Twitter profile and the relationship between Altmetric score and citation count. In each year, Twitter accounted for the highest number of mentions.

Conclusion The findings suggest that correlation between Altmetric score and traditional quality metric scores may be increasing. Altmetric score was correlated with impact factor and number of citations in 2016 but not 2013. At this time, Altmetrics are best used as an adjunct that is complementary but not an alternative to traditional bibliometrics for assessing academic productivity and impact.

Social media attention and citations of published outputs from re-use of clinical trial data: a matched comparison with articles published in the same journals

BACKGROUND

Data-sharing policies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should have an evaluation component. The main objective of this case-control study was to assess the impact of published re-uses of RCT data in terms of media attention (Altmetric) and citation rates.

METHODS

Re-uses of RCT data published up to December 2019 (cases) were searched for by two reviewers on 3 repositories (CSDR, YODA project, and Vivli) and matched to control papers published in the same journal. The Altmetric Attention Score (primary outcome), components of this score (e.g. mention of policy sources, media attention) and the total number of citations were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

89 re-uses were identified: 48 (53.9%) secondary analyses, 34 (38.2%) meta-analyses, 4 (4.5%) methodological analyses and 3 (3.4%) re-analyses. The median (interquartile range) Altmetric Attention Scores were 5.9 (1.3-22.2) for re-use and 2.8 (0.3-12.3) for controls (p = 0.14). No statistical difference was found on any of the components of in the Altmetric Attention Score. The median (interquartile range) numbers of citations were 3 (1-8) for reuses and 4 (1 - 11.5) for controls (p = 0.30). Only 6/89 re-uses (6.7%) were cited in a policy source.

CONCLUSIONS

Using all available re-uses of RCT data to date from major data repositories, we were not able to demonstrate that re-uses attracted more attention than a matched sample of studies published in the same journals. Small average differences are still possible, as the sample size was limited. However matching choices have some limitations so results should be interpreted very cautiously. Also, citations by policy sources for re-uses were rare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration: osf.io/fp62e.

The Online Attention to Cleft Lip and Palate Research: An Altmetric Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify research articles related to cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) that generated the highest online attention.

METHODS

Altmetric Explorer was used to identify the 100 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Descriptive and correlation statistics were performed to study the characteristics of these articles in relation to their publication data, research type and domain, number of Mendeley readers, and dimensions citations. Citation counts were extracted from Scopus and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

The median AAS for the top 100 outputs was 22 (range from 12 to 458). The outputs were mostly discussed on Twitter (median = 8; range = 0-131). Topics discussing treatment and care for patients with CL/P accounted for 38% of the articles with the highest AAS followed by etiology and risk factors (32%). The majority of articles originated from the USA (46%) followed by Europe (16%) and the United Kingdom (15%). No significant differences were observed in AAS among different study designs, topic domains, journals' ranking and impact factor, and the number of citations in Scopus and Google Scholar.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should consider use of social platforms to disseminate their work among scholars and nonscholars. Altmetrics can be combined with traditional metrics for a more comprehensive assessment of research impact.

Meta-Analysis of Correlations between Altmetric Attention Score and Citations in Health Sciences

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, several controversial reports of the correlation between altmetric score and citations have been published (range: -0.2 to 0.8). We conducted a meta-analysis to provide an in-depth statistical analysis of the correlation between altmetric score and number of citations in the field of health sciences.

METHODS

Three online databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) were systematically searched, without language restrictions, from the earliest publication date available through February 29, 2020, using the keywords "altmetric," "citation," and "correlation." Grey literature was also searched via WorldCat, Open Grey, and Google Scholar (first 100 hits only). All studies in the field of health sciences that reported on this correlation were included. Effect sizes were calculated using Fisher's z transformation of correlations. Subgroup analyses based on citation source and sampling methods were performed.

RESULTS

From 27 included articles, 8 articles comprise several independent studies. The total sample size was 9,943 articles comprised of 35 studies. The overall pooled effect size was 0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.26). Bivariate partial prediction of interaction between effect size, citation source, and sampling method showed a greater effect size with Web of Science compared with Scopus and Dimensions. Egger's regression showed a marginally nonsignificant publication bias (p = 0.055), and trim-and-fill analysis estimated one missing study in this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

In health sciences, currently altmetric score has a positive but weak correlation with number of citations (pooled correlation = 0.19, 95% C.I 0.12 to 0.25). We emphasize on future examinations to assess changes of correlation pattern between altmetric score and citations over time.

Examining the Relationship between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Pathology Literature

Background:

Recently, research data are increasingly shared through social media and other digital platforms. Traditionally, the influence of a scientific article has been assessed by the publishing journal's impact factor (IF) and its citation count. The Altmetric scoring system, a new bibliometric that integrates research “mentions” over digital media platforms, has emerged as a metric of online research distribution. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship of the Altmetric Score with IF and citation number within the pathology literature.

Methods:

Citation count and Altmetric scores were obtained from the top 10 most-cited articles from the 15 pathology journals with the highest IF for 2013 and 2016. These variables were analyzed and correlated with each other, as well as the age of the publishing journal's Twitter account.

Results:

Three hundred articles were examined from the two cohorts. The total citation count of the articles decreased from 21,043 (2013) to 14,679 (2016), while the total Altmetric score increased from 830 (2013) to 4066 (2016). In 2013, Altmetric score weakly correlated with citation number (r = 0.284, P < 0.001) but not with journal IF (r = 0.024, P = 0.771). In 2016, there was strong correlation between citation count and Altmetric Score (r = 0.714, P < 0.0001) but not the IF (r = 0.0442, P = 0.591). Twitter was the single most important contributor to the Altmetric score; however, the age of the Twitter account was not associated with citation number nor Altmetric score.

Conclusions:

In the pathology literature studied, the Altmetric score correlates with article citation count, suggesting that the Altmetric score and conventional bibliometrics can be treated as complementary metrics. Given the trend towards increasing use of social media, additional investigation is warranted to evaluate the evolving role of social media metrics to assess the dissemination and impact of scientific findings in the field of pathology.

Changes in Social Media Impact of the Radiological Literature During the Covid-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to determine how the social media impact of the radiological literature has changed during the Covid-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Altmetric Attention scores were collected for all articles in five leading radiology journals over a 5-year period ending in June 2020, and temporal smoothing yielded the filtered Altmetric Attention (fAA) score. Natural language processing methods were used to label articles with major topic areas. A forecasting model was used to identify periods of outlier behavior in the fAA score aggregated across all journals, for each journal individually, and stratified by article topic area. The distributions of fAA scores prior to the onset of the pandemic were statistically compared to those during the pandemic. For journals exhibiting increased fAA scores, the frequency distributions of articles not related to Covid-19 was compared to that prior to the pandemic.

RESULTS

During the pandemic, we found sustained outliers and statistically significant increases in the aggregate fAA score across all five journals, as well as for Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, and Academic Radiology individually. Articles related to Covid-19, thoracic imaging, and radiology education also experienced significantly increased fAA scores during the pandemic period. We did not find significantly decreased rates of publication of non-Covid articles in the journals experiencing elevated fAA scores.

CONCLUSION

Social media engagement with the radiological literature significantly increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. This preferentially affected certain journals and articles addressing specific topics, reflecting the intense public interest in the diagnosis and treatment of Covid-19.

Disruptive Innovation in Dentistry: What It Is and What Could Be Next

Dentistry is a technically oriented profession, and the health care sector is significantly influenced by the ubiquitous trend of digitalization. Some of these digital developments have the potential to result in disruptive changes for dental practice, while others may turn out to be just a pipedream. This Discovery! essay focuses on innovations built on artificial intelligence (AI) as the center-technology influencing 1) dental eHealth data management, 2) clinical and technical health care applications, and 3) services and operations. AI systems enable personalized dental medicine workflows by analyzing all eHealth data gathered from an individual patient. Besides dental-specific data, this also includes genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic information and therefore facilitates optimized and personalized treatment strategies and risk management. Based on the power of AI, the triangular frame of "data"/"health care"/"service" is supplemented by technological advancements in the field of social media, Internet of things, augmented and virtual reality, rapid prototyping, and intraoral optical scanning as well as teledentistry. Innovation continues to be critical to tackle dental problems until its routine implementation based on sound scientific evidence. Novel technologies must be viewed critically in relation to the cost-benefit ratio and the ethical implications of a misleading diagnosis or treatment produced by AI algorithms. Highly sensitive eHealth data must be handled responsibly to enable the immense benefits of these technologies to be realized for society. The focus on patient-centered research and the development of personalized dental medicine have the potential to improve individual and public health, as well as clarify the interconnectivity of disease in a more cost-effective way.

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

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.

The online attention to orthodontic research: an Altmetric analysis of the orthodontic journals indexed in the journal citation reports from 2014 to 2018

BACKGROUND

To describe the impact of research, beyond the limits of the academic environment, Altmetric, a new social and traditional media metric was proposed. The aims of this study were to analyze the online activity related to orthodontic research via Altmetric and to assess if a correlation exists among citations, Mendeley reader count, and the AAS (Altmetric Attention Score).

METHOD

The Dimensions App was searched for articles published in the orthodontic journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) throughout the years 2014 to 2018. The articles with a positive AAS were collected and screened for data related to publication and authorship. The articles with an AAS higher than 5 were screened for research topic and study design. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus.

RESULTS

The best performing journals were Progress in Orthodontics and the European Journal of Orthodontics with a mean AAS per published item of 1.455 and 1.351, respectively and the most prevalent sources were Tweets and Facebook mentions. The most prevalent topic was Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQOL) and the study design was systematic reviews. The correlation between the AAS and the citations in both WOS and Scopus was poor (r = 0.1463 and r = 0.1508, p < .05). The correlation between citations count and Mendeley reader (r = 0.6879 and r = 0.697, p < .05) was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Few journals displayed a high level of web activity. Journals and editors should enhance online dissemination of the scientific outputs. The authors should report the impact of the findings to the general public in a convenient way to facilitate online dissemination but to avoid an opportunistic use of the research outputs. Despite the lack of correlation, a combination of the citation count and the AAS can give a more comprehensive assessment of research impact.

What is trending in paediatric dentistry? An Altmetric study on paediatric dentistry journals

PURPOSE

To assess the online attention to research in the field of paediatric dentistry in relation to publication details and citations.

METHODS

The articles were identified by a search performed through the Dimensions Free App. The search included the six journals related to paediatric dentistry listed in the SCImago Journal and Country Rank. The 200 articles with the highest AAS (Altmetric Attention Score) were collected and screened for data related to publication, authorship, and research topic. Citations were harvested from WOS (Web of Science) and Scopus.

RESULTS

The 86.3% of the 200 articles belonged to only two of the journals: the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry and the European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. The 53.5% of the articles were published between 2014 and 2019. The mean AAS was 8.3. Cross-sectional studies were the most prevalent study design. AAS did not correlate to the number of citations as reported in WOS and Scopus.

CONCLUSIONS

Online attention to research in paediatric dentistry can be improved. According to the topic, erosion studies displayed high visibility. The classic citation count in combination with the AAS offers a more comprehensive insight iinto research. The online profile of journals and their social media dissemination policies should be improved to facilitate the spread of research information in scholar and non-scholar audiences through the web.

Scientific Production in Dentistry: The National Panorama through a Bibliometric Study of Italian Academies

Background

The academic scientific research in the field of dentistry has rapidly increased in the last 20 years under the pressure of the multidisciplinary technological advancements and the growing demand for new predictable and cost-effective techniques and materials. The aim of the present investigation was to analyze the academic scientific production conducted by Italian Academies and Dental Schools.

Methods

The list of MED/28 academic researchers, associate and full professors, and academic affiliations was collected from the national database of CINECA to evaluate the scientific output of the Italian Universities. The complete list of scientific contributions and the bibliometric parameters were recorded in the Scopus database.

Results

The scientific production of 37 Italian Universities, 416 researchers, and 23689 papers was evaluated. The measurement of total academic papers, citations, h-index, and relative citation ratio (RCR) was calculated. The study data showed an increase of the academic scientific production over the last 5 years.

Conclusions

The results presented show how scientific research is increasingly pursued by dental clinicians.

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008-2018

OBJECTIVES

To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals during 2008-2018 and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013, and 2018 in six oral implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study were extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts, and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects.

RESULTS

A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3, and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2%, and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p = .002) and AAS (p = .005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies.

CONCLUSIONS

During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of oral implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.

Spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontology and oral implantology: A cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the presence and characteristics of spin (a distorted interpretation to make research findings seem favorable) in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and oral implantology, and to explore its associated factors and influence on the subsequent literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify recent RCTs in periodontology and oral implantology, whose primary outcome was non-significant. Spin in abstracts was assessed and categorized according to pre-determined spin strategies. The associations between study characteristics and the presence / severity of spin were analyzed using multivariable logistic regressions.

RESULTS

196 abstracts were included, 137 (69.9%) of which had spin. 57 (29.1%) abstracts had spin in the Results Section, 126 (64.3%) had spin in the Conclusion Section. The main spin strategies in the Results and Conclusion Sections were focusing on secondary outcomes (16.3%) and focusing on within-group comparisons (28.6%), respectively. The presence of spin was associated with number of centers (OR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.73; p=0.009) while its severity was associated with topic (OR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of spin is relatively high among published RCT abstracts in periodontology and oral implantology. Findings reported in these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.