Measuring the social impact of contemporary dysphagia research: an altmetric analysis

ABSTRACT This study aimed to (a) identify characteristics of dysphagia research receiving online attention; (b) determine associations between altmetric scores and traditional research metrics; (c) establish differences in altmetric scores between open access and closed access research and funded and non-funded research. Altmetric Explorer was searched on 7th October 2019 to identify contemporary (January 2014 to January 2019) articles with the keyword ‘dysphagia’. Data from 100 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were exported for analysis. Data extracted included journal name; first author profession; country; study design; population studied; publication year; journal impact factor; citations; downloads; funding and access status. Most of the 100 articles (AAS 19–317) focused on adult populations (95%). Nearly half of study designs were systematic reviews (27%) or randomized control trials (18%). The Dysphagia journal published the most articles (34%) and nearly one-third of first authors (31%) were based in USA. The most studied population was neurological (30%). There was no association between altmetric scores and traditional metrics. A significant difference in altmetric scores (U = 650.50, p = 0.045, p < 0.05) was found between the earlier time-period (2014–2016) (median AAS = 29) and later time-period (2016–2019) (median AAS=36). A significant difference in altmetric scores was identified between open (median = 33) and non-open access research (median = 29) (U = 1030.50, p = 0.048). Altmetric scores provide an innovative article level metric capturing public interest in dysphagia research. As altmetric scores do not correlate with traditional metrics, improved understanding of the type of dysphagia research that has social impact is imperative to guide researchers and clinicians.