ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2011
Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Future of Basic Science: Development of the Next Generation of Mechanistic Researchers in Female Pelvic Medicine.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Mapping the global research landscape on insulin resistance: Visualization and bibliometric analysis.World journal of diabetes · 2022Article
- Academia Europaea Position Paper on Translational Medicine: The Cycle Model for Translating Scientific Results into Community Benefits.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Global research productions pertaining to atrial fibrillation from 2004 to 2018: A bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Introducing altmetrics to the Journal of the Medical Library Association.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2017Article
- At the Leading Front of Neuroscience: A Bibliometric Study of the 100 Most-Cited Articles.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Article
- Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.Circulation research · 2015Article
- Scientometric Analysis and Mapping of Scientific Articles on Diabetic Retinopathy.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2015Article
- Impact factor 2013 of the Netherlands Heart Journal surpasses 2.0.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
- The impact factor of the Netherlands Heart Journal in 2013.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2013Article
- Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research.PloS one · 2013Article
- The Nightingale Prize for best MBEC paper in 2011.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2012Article
- The Nightingale Prize 2011 for best MBEC paper in 2010.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2011Article
- Bibliometric data in clinical cardiology revisited. The case of 37 Dutch professors.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, a critical analysis is performed on differences in citation frequency of basic and clinical cardiovascular papers. It appears that the latter papers are cited at about 40% higher frequency. The differences between the largest number of citations of the most cited papers are even larger. It is also demonstrated that the groups of clinical and basic cardiovascular papers are also heterogeneous concerning citation frequency. It is concluded that none of the existing citation indicators appreciates these differences. At this moment these indicators should not be used for quality assessment of individual scientists and scientific niches with small numbers of scientists.
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.