ArticleBMJ open2015
Bibliometrics of NIHR HTA monographs and their related journal articles.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality and costs of commissioned vs. researcher-led NIHR research: retrospective cohort study of randomised controlled trials.PloS one · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA bibliometric analysis of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) monographs and their related journal articles by: (1) exploring the differences in citations to the HTA monographs in Google Scholar (GS), Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), and (2) comparing Scopus citations to the monographs with their related journal articles.
settingA study of 111 HTA monographs published in 2010 and 2011, and their external journal articles.
main outcome measuresCitations to the monographs in GS, Scopus and WoS, and to their external journal articles in Scopus.
resultsThe number of citations varied among the three databases, with GS having the highest and WoS the lowest; however, the citation-based rankings among the databases were highly correlated. Overall, 56% of monographs had a related publication, with the highest proportion for primary research (76%) and lowest for evidence syntheses (43%). There was a large variation in how the monographs were cited, compared to journal articles, resulting in more frequent problems, with unlinked citations in Scopus and WoS. When comparing differences in the number of citations between monograph publications with their related journal articles from the same project, we found that monographs received more citations than their journal articles for evidence syntheses and methodology projects; by contrast, journal articles related to primary research monographs were more highly cited than their monograph.
conclusionsThe numbers of citations to the HTA monographs differed considerably between the databases, but were highly correlated. When a HTA monograph had a journal article from the same study, there were more citations to the journal article for primary research, but more to the monographs for evidence syntheses. Citations to the related journal articles were more reliably recorded than citations to the HTA monographs.
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.