ArticleInternational orthopaedics2015
Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with International Orthopaedics.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Citation Velocity and Social Media Impact Analysis of Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Randomized Controlled Trials.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Visibility vs. virality and from hashtags to hysteria: how orthopaedic surgeons can surf the social media tsunami without drowning?International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- The Role of Scientific Research in Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Discussions on Twitter: Social Network Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Positive Correlation Between Social Media Utilization by Orthopaedic Journals and Impact Factor.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Article
- Relationship of Altmetric Attention Score, Twitter Performance, and Dimensions Badge Value With Traditional Metrics in Top-Cited Anterior Cruciate Ligament Research Studies.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- The 50 Most Cited Articles in Knee Medial Collateral Ligament Injury Research.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- The 50 most impactful articles on the medial ulnar collateral ligament: An altmetric analysis of online media.SAGE open medicine · 2022Review
- Writing for "internal orthopaedics": referencing quality citations.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Writing for "International Orthopaedics": authorship, fraud, and ethical concerns.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Evaluating obesity publications: from bibliometrics to altmetrics.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2021Article
- The Patterns and Impact of Social Media Exposure of Journal Publications in Gastroenterology: Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- The 50 Most Cited Articles in Meniscal Injury Research.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
- Writing for SICOT-J.SICOT-J · 2021Article
- Classic publications and scientometrics in orthopaedics.International orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Useful and useless publications measured by bibliometrics and scientometrics in orthopaedic surgery. Are the relevance of a journal and publication metrics useful enough for the scientific promotion of surgeons?International orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: A case study of a CNODES drug-safety article.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Review
- Surgeons and robots.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
- Citations, non-citations and visibility of International Orthopaedics in 2017.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis paper compares the traditional tools of calculation for a journal's efficacy and visibility with the new tools that have arrived from the Internet, social media and search engines. The examples concern publications of orthopaedic surgery and in particular International Orthopaedics. METHODS AND
resultsUntil recently, the prestige of publications, authors or journals was evaluated by the number of citations using the traditional citation metrics, most commonly the impact factor. Over the last few years, scientific medical literature has developed exponentially. The Internet has dramatically changed the way of sharing and the speed of flow of medical information. New tools have allowed readers from all over the world to access information and record their experience. Web platforms such as Facebook® and Twitter® have allowed for inputs from the general public. Professional sites such as LinkedIn® and more specialised sites such as ResearchGate®, BioMed Central® and OrthoEvidence® have provided specific information on defined fields of science. Scientific and professional blogs provide free access quality information. Therefore, in this new era of advanced wireless technology and online medical communication, the prestige of a paper should also be evaluated by alternative metrics (altmetrics) that measure the visibility of the scientific information by collecting Internet citations, number of downloads, number of hits on the Internet, number of tweets and likes of scholarly articles by newspapers, blogs, social media and other sources of data. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: This article provides insights into altmetrics and informs the reader about current tools for optimal visibility and citation of their work. It also includes useful information about the performance of International Orthopaedics and the bias between traditional publication metrics and the new alternatives.
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.