ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Novel citation-based search method for scientific literature: a validation study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating Effectiveness of mHealth Apps for Older Adults With Diabetes: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Global meta-analysis of short-term associations between ambient temperature and pathogen-specific respiratory infections, 2004 to 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Pooled it
- One Health Determinants ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- The diagnostic levels of evidence of instrumented devices for measuring viscoelastic joint properties and spasticity; a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- BibliZap: An exploratory evaluation of an automated multi-level citation searching tool for systematic and rapid reviews.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Testing evolutionary theories of human cooperation via meta-analysis of microfinance repayment.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026Article
- Supplementary search methods versus bibliographic database searching to identify studies and study reports.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Automated citation searching in systematic review production: A simulation study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- A lightweight intelligent grading method for lychee anthracnose based on improved YOLOv12.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Genetic counselling resources in non-english languages: A scoping review.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- The Effects of Shift Work on the Immune System: A Narrative Review.Sleep science (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2023Review
- A transcriptomic intratumour heterogeneity-free signature overcomes sampling bias in prognostic risk classification for hepatocellular carcinoma.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2023Article
- Structural racism theory, measurement, and methods: A scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Use of Health Services and Support Resources by Immediate Family Members Bereaved by Suicide: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Can social support be improved in people with a severe mental illness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Article
- Functional and structural analyses of novel Smith-Kingsmore Syndrome-Associated MTOR variants reveal potential new mechanisms and predictors of pathogenicity.PLoS genetics · 2021Article
- Overlaps of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking in dementia care research: a methodological study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe recently developed CoCites, a citation-based search method that is designed to be more efficient than traditional keyword-based methods. The method begins with identification of one or more highly relevant publications (query articles) and consists of two searches: the co-citation search, which ranks publications on their co-citation frequency with the query articles, and the citation search, which ranks publications on frequency of all citations that cite or are cited by the query articles.
methodsWe aimed to reproduce the literature searches of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and assess whether CoCites retrieves all eligible articles while screening fewer titles.
resultsA total of 250 reviews were included. CoCites retrieved a median of 75% of the articles that were included in the original reviews. The percentage of retrieved articles was higher (88%) when the query articles were cited more frequently and when they had more overlap in their citations. Applying CoCites to only the highest-cited article yielded similar results. The co-citation and citation searches combined were more efficient when the review authors had screened more than 500 titles, but not when they had screened less.
conclusionsCoCites is an efficient and accurate method for finding relevant related articles. The method uses the expert knowledge of authors to rank related articles, does not depend on keyword selection and requires no special expertise to build search queries. The method is transparent and reproducible.
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.