ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2012
Two h-index benchmarks for evaluating the publication performance of medical informatics researchers.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Are Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Knee Surgeons Watching? Exploring Trends in Online Surgical Technique Videos on the VuMedi Education Platform.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Global research trends in robot-assisted spinal surgery: a visualized bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Deep forecasting of translational impact in medical research.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Emerging Trends and Thematic Evolution of Breast Cancer: Knowledge Mapping and Co-Word Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2021Article
- Global Burden of Skin Disease Representation in the Literature: Bibliometric Analysis.JMIR dermatology · 2021Article
- MIRASS: medical informatics research activity support system using information mashup network.Journal of medical systems · 2014Article
- A classification scheme for analyzing mobile apps used to prevent and manage disease in late life.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2014Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe h-index is a commonly used metric for evaluating the publication performance of researchers. However, in a multidisciplinary field such as medical informatics, interpreting the h-index is a challenge because researchers tend to have diverse home disciplines, ranging from clinical areas to computer science, basic science, and the social sciences, each with different publication performance profiles.
objectiveTo construct a reference standard for interpreting the h-index of medical informatics researchers based on the performance of their peers.
methodsUsing a sample of authors with articles published over the 5-year period 2006-2011 in the 2 top journals in medical informatics (as determined by impact factor), we computed their h-index using the Scopus database. Percentiles were computed to create a 6-level benchmark, similar in scheme to one used by the US National Science Foundation, and a 10-level benchmark.
resultsThe 2 benchmarks can be used to place medical informatics researchers in an ordered category based on the performance of their peers. A validation exercise mapped the benchmark levels to the ranks of medical informatics academic faculty in the United States. The 10-level benchmark tracked academic rank better (with no ties) and is therefore more suitable for practical use.
conclusionsOur 10-level benchmark provides an objective basis to evaluate and compare the publication performance of medical informatics researchers with that of their peers using the h-index.
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.