ArticlePloS one2010
Hirsch index and truth survival in clinical research.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the H-Indexes of Editorial Board Members in Ophthalmology Journals Published in Türkiye.Beyoglu eye journal · 2024Article
- Research productivity across different ophthalmic subspecialties in the United States.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- A bibliometric analysis of digestive health research in Canada: "fair is foul, and foul is fair".Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFactors associated with the survival of truth of clinical conclusions in the medical literature are unknown. We hypothesized that publications with a first author having a higher Hirsch' index value (h-I), which quantifies and predicts an individual's scientific research output, should have a longer half-life. METHODS AND
results474 original articles concerning cirrhosis or hepatitis published from 1945 to 1999 were selected. The survivals of the main conclusions were updated in 2009. The truth survival was assessed by time-dependent methods (Kaplan Meier method and Cox). A conclusion was considered to be true, obsolete or false when three or more observers out of the six stated it to be so. 284 out of 474 conclusions (60%) were still considered true, 90 (19%) were considered obsolete and 100 (21%) false. The median of the h-I was=24 (range 1-85). Authors with true conclusions had significantly higher h-I (median=28) than those with obsolete (h-I=19; P=0.002) or false conclusions (h-I=19; P=0.01). The factors associated (P<0.0001) with h-I were: scientific life (h-I=33 for>30 years vs. 16 for<30 years), -methodological quality score (h-I=36 for high vs. 20 for low scores), and -positive predictive value combining power, ratio of true to not-true relationships and bias (h-I=33 for high vs. 20 for low values). In multivariate analysis, the risk ratio of h-I was 1.003 (95%CI, 0.994-1.011), and was not significant (P=0.56). In a subgroup restricted to 111 articles with a negative conclusion, we observed a significant independent prognostic value of h-I (risk ratio=1.033; 95%CI, 1.008-1.059; P=0.009). Using an extrapolation of h-I at the time of article publication there was a significant and independent prognostic value of baseline h-I (risk ratio=0.027; P=0.0001).
conclusionsThe present study failed to clearly demonstrate that the h-index of authors was a prognostic factor for truth survival. However the h-index was associated with true conclusions, methodological quality of trials and positive predictive values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.