Evaluating the effectiveness of citation count as a measure of methodological quality in esophagogastric surgery research: a comparative analysis with the MINORS score and levels of evidence.
Suhaib Js Ahmad, Ahmed R Ahmed, Ata Mohajer-Bastami, Sarah Moin, Benedict Sweetman, Sjaak Pouwels, Marion Head, Joseph Borucki, Anil Lala, Wah Yang, Christopher John Houlden, Tarek Garsaa, Aristomenis Exadaktylos
{"title":"Evaluating the effectiveness of citation count as a measure of methodological quality in esophagogastric surgery research: a comparative analysis with the MINORS score and levels of evidence.","authors":"Suhaib Js Ahmad, Ahmed R Ahmed, Ata Mohajer-Bastami, Sarah Moin, Benedict Sweetman, Sjaak Pouwels, Marion Head, Joseph Borucki, Anil Lala, Wah Yang, Christopher John Houlden, Tarek Garsaa, Aristomenis Exadaktylos","doi":"10.22037/ghfbb.v17i3.3005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The primary objective was to assess the relationship between the citation number and the quality of the articles, as compared with the level of evidence and the MINORS score. This study's secondary objective was to characterize the 50 most cited articles in the field of oesophagectomy research.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been an increased need for an evaluation tool to indicate research quality. Available quality assessment tools include the Level of Evidence, the MINORS score, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool, the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, CASP Appraisal Checklists, and Legend Evidence Evaluation tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Web of Science allowed evaluating and comparing articles on oesophagectomy research. The quality of the 50 most cited articles was assessed using the Oxford Centre level of evidence classification and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Level of evidence II studies were cited more than level IV (P=0.008). There was a significant positive correlation between citation number and MINORS score (P=0.002). The median MINORS score was highest amongst level II studies, followed by levels III, IV, and I. The median MINORS score for level II evidence was significantly higher than for level IV (P=0.001). The study sample size is associated with higher levels of evidence but does not correlate with the citation number. Female authors contributed to 4 out of 50 articles. Recently published articles tended to be cited more frequently. More authors equated to more citations. Prospective studies are more likely to be cited.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Citation analysis can be used as an indicator of quality when assessing articles. It should, however, be used with caution as highly cited work, famous authors, and journals are all more likely to be cited. Citation analysis should be used alongside other well-established tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":12636,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench","volume":"17 3","pages":"212-224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11413383/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/ghfbb.v17i3.3005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: The primary objective was to assess the relationship between the citation number and the quality of the articles, as compared with the level of evidence and the MINORS score. This study's secondary objective was to characterize the 50 most cited articles in the field of oesophagectomy research.
Background: There has been an increased need for an evaluation tool to indicate research quality. Available quality assessment tools include the Level of Evidence, the MINORS score, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool, the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, CASP Appraisal Checklists, and Legend Evidence Evaluation tools.
Methods: The Web of Science allowed evaluating and comparing articles on oesophagectomy research. The quality of the 50 most cited articles was assessed using the Oxford Centre level of evidence classification and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS).
Results: Level of evidence II studies were cited more than level IV (P=0.008). There was a significant positive correlation between citation number and MINORS score (P=0.002). The median MINORS score was highest amongst level II studies, followed by levels III, IV, and I. The median MINORS score for level II evidence was significantly higher than for level IV (P=0.001). The study sample size is associated with higher levels of evidence but does not correlate with the citation number. Female authors contributed to 4 out of 50 articles. Recently published articles tended to be cited more frequently. More authors equated to more citations. Prospective studies are more likely to be cited.
Conclusion: Citation analysis can be used as an indicator of quality when assessing articles. It should, however, be used with caution as highly cited work, famous authors, and journals are all more likely to be cited. Citation analysis should be used alongside other well-established tools.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
