ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2023
Cumulative group metrics: a new and efficient method to measure the scientific impact of research groups.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2023. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various metrics have emerged for assessing scientific impact, most of which are based on complex calculations and, in many cases, are not freely available. Moreover, most of these metrics are not intended for assessing the scientific impact of research groups. Cumulative group metrics are proposed as an efficient and cost-effective strategy for measuring group scientific impact. Materials and methods: The authors collected peer-reviewed output in 2020 from two academic orthopedic surgery departments [University of Michigan (UM) and Mayo Clinic Rochester (MC)] and one medical device research department [Arthrex Inc. (AI)]. The sites evaluated the Cumulative Group Number of Publications (CGNP), Cumulative Journal Impact Factor (CJIF), Cumulative CiteScore (CCS), Cumulative SCImago Journal Rank (CSJR), and Cumulative Source Normalized Impact per Paper (CSNIP) for the three institutions. Results: In 2020, UM published 159 peer-reviewed studies, MC published 347 peer-reviewed studies, and AI supported 141 publications. The UM publications achieved a CJIF of 513, a CCS of 891, a CSJR of 255, and a CSNIP of 247. The MC publications achieved a CJIF of 956, a CCS of 1568, a CSJR of 485, and a CSNIP of 508. AI-supported publications achieved a CJIF of 314, a CCS of 598, a CSJR of 189, and a CSNIP of 189. Conclusion: The presented cumulative group metrics are an effective tool to assess the scientific impact of a research group. The cumulative submetrics can further evaluate research groups compared with other departments due to field normalization. Department leadership and funding agencies can utilize these metrics to evaluate research output quantitatively and qualitatively.
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.