Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31886636›Full record

ArticleESC heart failure2019

The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.

Markus S Anker, Sara Hadzibegovic, Alessia Lena, Wilhelm Haverkamp

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ESC heart failure, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Markus S AnkerDivision of Cardiology and Metabolism, Department of Cardiology, Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum (CVK), Berlin, Germany.
Sara HadzibegovicDivision of Cardiology and Metabolism, Department of Cardiology, Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum (CVK), Berlin, Germany.
Alessia LenaDivision of Cardiology and Metabolism, Department of Cardiology, Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum (CVK), Berlin, Germany.
Wilhelm HaverkampDivision of Cardiology and Metabolism, Department of Cardiology, Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum (CVK), Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsHow often a medical article is cited is important for many people because it is used to calculate different variables such as the h-index and the journal impact factor. The aim of this analysis was to assess how the citation count varies between Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar in the current literature.

methodsWe included the top 50 cited articles of four journals ESC Heart Failure; Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle; European Journal of Preventive Cardiology; and European Journal of Heart Failure in our analysis that were published between 1 January 2016 and 10 October 2019. We recorded the number of citations of these articles according to WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar on 10 October 2019.

resultsThe top 50 articles in ESC Heart Failure were on average cited 12 (WoS), 13 (Scopus), and 17 times (Google Scholar); in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle 37 (WoS), 43 (Scopus), and 60 times (Google Scholar); in European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 41 (WoS), 56 (Scopus), and 67 times (Google Scholar); and in European Journal of Heart Failure 76 (WoS), 108 (Scopus), and 230 times (Google Scholar). On average, the top 50 articles in all four journals were cited 41 (WoS), 52 (Scopus, 26% higher citations count than WoS, range 8-42% in the different journals), and 93 times (Google Scholar, 116% higher citation count than WoS, range 42-203%).

conclusionScopus and Google Scholar on average have a higher citation count than WoS, whereas the difference is much larger between Google Scholar and WoS.

Indexed as

BibliometricsInternetPeriodicals as TopicCardiologyHeart FailureHumansGoogle ScholarScopusWeb of Science

Identifiers

PMID31886636
PMCPMC6989289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.