ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
How do urogynecology and pelvic floor dysfunction terms used in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery research relate to social media indicators?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe association between social media (SoMe) indicators and citation metrics is still controversial. we aimed to evaluate the frequency of urogynecology-related terms ("urogynecology" [UG] and "pelvic floor/dysfunction" [PF/PFD]) mentioned by traditional databases (Web of Science [WOS]) and journal ranking indicators (SCImago), as well as their association with SoMe (Altmetric database).
methodsIn April 2019, two authors performed a search that was divided into three steps. The first one was to assess journals within the WOS Obstetrics/Gynecology and Urology categories updated to 2017 using UG and PF/PFD. The second step was to rank these studies in SCImago by the highest numbers of WOS and to correlate with journal h-index and SJR. The third step was to analyze SoMe indicators such as the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) for each study and journal retrieved.
resultsThe International Urogynecology Journal (IUJ) and Neurourology and Urodynamics (NAU) were the first (n = 1,394) and second (n = 974) most highly cited journals when using UG and PFD. IUJ also presented manuscripts with the highest AAS for UG and PF/PFD. Social media represented 74-93% of AAS calculated among the 20 top cited studies. For UG, SoMe presented 8,050 mentions, led by Twitter (n = 7,326). The same distribution was seen for PFD (8,493 mentions for SoMe, Twitter with 7,653). The higher the WOS citation, the higher the AAS (r = 0.483; p = 0.03).
conclusionUG and PF/PFD terms are highly cited in databases and IUJ was the journal most frequently connected with them. Among SoMe tools, Twitter was the most frequently cited. WOS citations correlated with AAS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32681349What 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.