ArticleThe journal of trauma and acute care surgery2023
Citation versus disruption in the military: Analysis of the top disruptive military trauma research publications.
Article in The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation and Comparison of Academic Impact and Disruptive Innovation Level of Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis and Disruptive Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Disruption of trauma research: an analysis of the top cited versus disruptive trauma research publications.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBibliometric analysis of surgical research has become increasingly prevalent. Citation count (CC) is a commonly used marker of research quality, but may overlook impactful military research. The disruption score (DS) evaluates manuscripts on a spectrum from most innovative with more positive scores (disruptive [DR]) to most entrenched with more negative scores (developmental; DV). We sought to analyze the most DR and DV versus most cited research in military trauma.
methodsTop trauma articles by DS and by CC were identified via professional literature search. All publications in military journals were included. Military trauma-related keywords were used to query additional top surgical journals for military-focused publications. Publications were linked to the iCite NIH tool for CC and related metrics. The top 100 DR and DV publications by DS were analyzed and compared with the top 100 articles by CC.
resultsOverall, 32,040 articles published between 1954 and 2014 were identified. The average DS and CC were 0.01 and 22, respectively. Most articles were published in Mil Med ( 68%). The top 100 DR articles were frequently published in Mil Med (51%) with a mean DS of 0.148. Of these, the most cited article was only the 40th most disruptive. The top 100 CC articles averaged a DS of 0.009 and were commonly found in J Trauma (53%). Only five publications were on both the top 100 DR and top 100 CC lists; 19 were on both the top DV and CC lists. Citation count was not correlated with DR ( r = -0.134; p = 0.07) and only weakly correlated with DV ( r = 0.215; p = 0.003).
conclusionDS identifies publications that changed military paradigms and future research directions previously overlooked by citation count alone. The DR and DV articles are distinct with little overlap between highly cited military articles. Multiple bibliometric measures should be employed to avoid overlooking impactful military trauma research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level IV.
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.