ArticleAnais brasileiros de dermatologia
Factors influencing citations to systematic reviews in skin diseases: a cross-sectional study through Web of Sciences and Scopus.
Article in Anais brasileiros de dermatologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Citations for Randomized Controlled Trials in Sepsis Literature: The Halo Effect Caused by Journal Impact Factor.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisseminating information derived from systematic reviews is a fundamental step for translating evidence into practice.
objectiveTo determine which features of dermatological SR are associated with systematic review dissemination, using citation rates as an indicator.
methodsDermatological systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2012 were obtained from Scopus, the ISI Web of Sciences and the Cochrane Skin Group. Bibliometric data of every systematic review were collected and analyzed.
resultsA total of 320 systematic reviews were analyzed. Univariable analysis showed that the journal impact factor, number of authors, and total references cited were positively associated with the number of citations. There was a significant difference in the median number of citations with regard to the corresponding author's country, type of skin disease, type of funding, and presence of international collaboration. Cochrane reviews were significantly associated with a lower number of citations. Multivariable analysis found that the number of authors, number of references cited and the corresponding author from United Kingdom were independently correlated with many citations. Cochrane systematic reviews tended to be independently associated with a lower number of citations.
conclusionsCitation number to systematic reviews may be improving by increasing the number of authors, especially collaborative authors, and the number of cited references. The reasons for the association of Cochrane SRs with fewer citations should be addressed in future studies.
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.