ArticleWorld journal of surgery2019
Relative Value of Adapted Novel Bibliometrics in Evaluating Surgical Academic Impact and Reach.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends of robotic-assisted surgery in Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery: a bibliometric and visualization analysis based on web of science.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Thoughts on the Global Trends and hotspots of the learning curve for robot-assisted surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- The 100 most-cited articles in thyroid surgery from 1990 to 2023: a bibliometric analysis.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Mapping and visualization of global research progress on autophagy in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and metabolic syndrome: a bibliometric analysis (2009-2024).Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Nano-enhanced immunity: A bibliometric analysis of nanoparticles in vaccine adjuvant research.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Current insights on social media as a tool for the dissemination of research and education in surgery: a narrative review.Surgery today · 2024Review
- A bibliometric analysis of indocyanine green (ICG) in hepatobiliary surgery from 2008 to 2021.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2023Article
- Article
- Proof of surgical publication prowess: prospective observational study of factors associated with surrogate markers of academic reach.BJS open · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Hirsch index, often used to assess research impact, suffers from questionable validity within the context of General Surgery, and consequently adapted bibliometrics and altmetrics have emerged, including the r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index. This study aimed to assess the relative value of these novel bibliometrics in a single UK Deanery General Surgical Consultant cohort.
methodFive indices (h, r, m, g and i10) and altmetric scores (AS) were calculated for 151 general surgical consultants in a UK Deanery. Indices and AS were calculated from publication data via the Scopus search engine with assessment of construct validity and reliability.
resultsThe median number of publications, h-index, r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index were 13 (range 0-389), 5 (range 0-63), 5.2 (range 0-64.8), 0.33 (range 0-1.5), 10 (range 0-125) and 4 (range 0-245), respectively. Correlation coefficients of r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index with h-index were 0.913 (p < 0.001), 0.716 (p < 0.001), 0.961 (p < 0.001) and 0.939 (p < 0.001), respectively. Significant variance was observed when the cohort was ranked by individual bibliometric measures; the median ranking shifts were: r-index - 2 (- 46 to + 23); m-index - 6.5 (- 53 to + 22); g-index - 0.5 (- 24 to + 13); and i10-index 0 (- 8 to + 11), respectively (p < 0.001). The median altmetric score and AS index were 0 (range 0-225.5) and 1 (range 0-10), respectively; AS index correlated strongly with h-index (correlation coefficient 0.390, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAdapted bibliometric indices appear to be equally valid measures of evaluating academic productivity, impact and reach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30564922What 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.