SynthesisPloS one2013
Academic impact of qualitative studies in healthcare: bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Qualitative research in health: value and visibility.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
- Enriching Clinical Encounters Through Qualitative Research.Journal of patient experience · 2022Article
- Advances of waste management practices in India and China along with bibliometric assessment of their research outcomes.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in theBMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- International publication trends and collaboration performance of China in healthcare science and services research.Israel journal of health policy research · 2016Article
- China's growing contribution to global intracranial aneurysm research (1991-2012): a bibliometric study.PloS one · 2014Article
- Global cardiovascular research output, citations, and collaborations: a time-trend, bibliometric analysis (1999-2008).PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextAlthough qualitative studies are becoming more appreciated in healthcare, the number of publications of quality studies remains low. Little is known about the frequency and characteristics of citation in qualitative studies.
objectiveTo compare the academic impact of qualitative studies to that of two quantitative studies: systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials.
methodsPublications in BMJ between 1997 and 2006 (BMJ's median impact factor was 7.04 during this period) employing qualitative methods were matched to two quantitative studies appearing the same year using PubMed. Using Web of Science, citations within a 24-month publication period were determined. Additionally, three hypotheses were examined: qualitative studies are 1) infrequently cited in original articles or reviews; 2) rarely cited by authors in non-English-speaking countries; and 3) more frequently cited in non-medical disciplines (e.g., psychology or sociology).
resultsA total of 121 qualitative studies, 270 systematic reviews, and 515 randomised controlled trials were retrieved. Qualitative studies were cited a total of 1,089 times, with a median of 7.00 times (range, 0-34) for each study. Matched systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were cited 2,411 times and 1,600 times, respectively. With respect to citing documents, original articles and reviews exceeded 60% for each study design. Relative to quantitative studies, qualitative studies were cited more often by authors in English-speaking countries. With respect to subject area, medical disciplines were more frequently cited than non-medical disciplines for all three study designs (>80%).
conclusionThe median number of citations for qualitative studies was almost the same as the median of BMJ's impact factor during the survey period. For a suitable evaluation of qualitative studies in healthcare, it will be necessary to develop a reporting framework and include explicit discussions of clinical implications when reporting findings. Coordination between researchers and editors will be needed to achieve this goal.
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.