ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2022
Factors Affecting the Use of Medical Articles for Citation and Academic Reference.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Increases in publication quantity and the onset of open access have increased the complexity of conducting a literature search. Bibliometric markers, like impact factor (IF), have traditionally been used to help identify high-quality research. These markers exist amongst a variety of other factors, which poses the following question: what factors are examined when considering articles for clinical and academic research? Objective: To determine what factors are involved when authors choose citations to include in their publications. Methods: A voluntary and anonymous questionnaire-based survey was distributed to medical students, residents, and faculty from multiple medical schools across Canada during the 2020/2021 academic year. Survey ratings were scored on a 5-point Likert scale and open word response. Results: The study collected 156 complete sets of responses including 78 trainees (61 medical students and 17 residents), and 78 faculty. Language of the article (3.93) and availability on PubMed/Medline (3.77) were found more important than country of origin (2.14), institution (2.26), and IF (2.97). Trainees found the following factors more important than faculty: year of publication (3.94 vs 3.47, p = 0.0016), availability on Google/Google Scholar (2.51 vs 1.88, p = 0.0013), Open-access (2.46 vs 1.87, p = 0.0011), and Free access (2.73 vs 2.31, p = 0.049). Conclusion: Our study identified differences in faculty and trainee literature search preferences, bias towards English language publications, and the movement towards online literature sources. This knowledge provides insight into what biases individuals may be exposed to based on their language and literature search preferences. Future areas of research include how trainees' opinions change over time, identifying trainee ability to recognize predatory journals, and the need for better online journal article translators to mitigate the language bias. We believe this will lead to higher quality evidence and optimal patient care amongst healthcare workers.
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.