ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2013
Enhancing the h index for the objective assessment of healthcare researcher performance and impact.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Worldwide Research Trends and Regional Differences in the Development of Precision Medicine Under Data-Driven Approach: A Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Effect of Medical Student Contributions on Academic Productivity: Analysis of Student Authorship Over Time.Advances in medical education and practice · 2021Article
- Collaborative patterns, authorship practices and scientific success in biomedical research: a network analysis.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019Article
- H-index in medicine is driven by original research.Croatian medical journal · 2018Article
- Bibliometric Analyses of Physical and Occupational Therapy Faculty across Canada Indicate Productivity and Impact of Rehabilitation Research.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2015Article
- Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: Can any of them support academic promotion criteria?Journal of postgraduate medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether the h index (a bibliometric tool which is increasingly used to assess and appraise an individual's research performance) could be improved to better measure the academic performance and citation profile for individual healthcare researchers.
designCohort study.
settingFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, UK.
participantsPublication lists from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2009 for 501 academic healthcare researchers from the Faculty of Medicine.
main outcome measuresThe h index for each researcher was calculated over a nine-year period. The citation count for each researcher was differentiated into high (h(2) upper), core (h(2) centre) and low (h(2) lower) visibility areas. Segmented regression model (sRM) was used to statistically estimate number of high visibility publications (sRM value). Validity of the h index and other proposed adjuncts were analysed against academic rank and conventional bibliometric indicators.
resultsConstruct validity was demonstrated for h index, h(2) upper, h(2) centre, h(2) lower and sRM value (all P < 0.05). Convergent validity of the h index and sRM value was shown by significant correlations with total number of publications (r = 0.89 and 0.86 respectively, P < 0.05) and total number of citations (r = 0.96 and 0.65, respectively, P < 0.05). Significant differences in h index and sRM value existed between non-physician and physician researchers (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThis study supports the construct validity of the h index as a measure of healthcare researcher academic rank. It also identifies the assessment value of our developed indices of h(2) upper, h(2) centre, h(2) lower and sRM. These can be applied in combination with the h index to provide additional objective evidence to appraise the performance and impact of an academic healthcare researcher.
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.