ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2022
Does origin of article impact citation metrics in
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2022. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine if the origin of article published in Gynecologic Oncology ("Journal") is correlated with quality of the article when measured per US institution and per country, using an index of citation (IOC) metric as a stand-in for article quality. Methods: PubMed was used to query the Journal from 2005 to 2020. Articles not deemed original research were excluded. A US-only cohort ("US-Only") was evaluated separately from the entire cohort ("Whole"). The IOC for each article was calculated by dividing the number of citations listed in PubMed by the days from the publication date to 9/1/2021. The IOC per US institution was summarized by the median value. All articles were hand reviewed for correctness. The Whole cohort included all countries with 3 or more publications (including all of the US-Only cohort) and underwent similar analysis. Correlation coefficients were estimated using Pearson's correlation after log-transformation. Results: In the US-only cohort, 2733 articles from 276 institutions within the US contributed original articles to the Journal. The association between the number of publications per institution and the median IOC was not well correlated (Pearson's Correlation coeffeicient r = 0.16, p = 0.009). In the Whole cohort, 5,848 original research articles were published from 40 countries. There was no difference between median IOC for articles from US compared to non-US institutions was (0.0026 vs 0.0027, p = 0.287). The US median IOC was ranked 17/40. The US accounted for just over half (51.2%) of publications, and there was a trend of decreasing Non-US publications over time (p = 0.0004). Conclusions: The Journal was fairly consistent in the quality of articles published over the 15-year study period when using the IOC as a surrogate for quality, regardless of the article's country or US institution of origin.
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.