ArticleSystematic reviews2013
Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis in Rhinosinusitis: a Critical Review of the Reviews.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2018Pooled it
- Knowledge Mapping of Alport Syndrome: A Bibliometric Analysis From 2000 to 2025.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2026Review
- Research Waste, Redundancy and the Rise of the Machines: The Questionable Future of Systematic Reviews.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Article
- Review
- A bibliometric analysis of the 100 top-cited systematic review and meta-analysis in Orthodontics.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- Mapping out the bibliometric characteristics ofJournal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Trends in Health Quality-Related Publications Over the Past Three Decades: Systematic Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Review
- Research status and hot topics of the effects of skin innervation on wound healing from 1959 to 2022: A bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Global research trends on maternal exposure to methylmercury and offspring health outcomes.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Top 100 Cited Publications in the Field of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2022Review
- The top 100 cited articles in pediatric urology: A bibliometric analysis.Journal of pediatric urology · 2021Review
- Article
- Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability?PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Knowledge Domain and Emerging Trends on Echinococcosis Research: A Scientometric Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Most-cited public health articles of scientific journals from Brazil.Revista de saude publica · 2019Article
- Article
- H-index in medicine is driven by original research.Croatian medical journal · 2018Article
- Citations for Randomized Controlled Trials in Sepsis Literature: The Halo Effect Caused by Journal Impact Factor.PloS one · 2017Article
- 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics.
methodsWe conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis.
resultsThe mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD ± 29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD ± 4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P < 0.001). Higher numbers of citations were associated with the following characteristics: first author from the United States (36.5 citations), an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms (31.8 citations), type of intervention classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening (34.7 citations) and having an international collaboration (32.1 citations). The JIF alone explained more than half of the variation in citations (R(2) = 0.59) in univariate analysis. Adjusting for both JIF and type of intervention increased the R2 value to 0.81. Fourteen percent of reviews published in the top quartile of JIFs (≥ 5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (≤ 2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations.
conclusionsThe JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews.
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.