Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38102710›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2023

Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements.

Ali Montazeri, Samira Mohammadi, Parisa M Hesari, Marjan Ghaemi, Hedyeh Riazi, Zahra Sheikhi-Mobarakeh

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 209 papers, 26 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
209citing papers in PubMed, 26 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

209 citing papers in PubMed, 26 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

149 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ali MontazeriPopulation Health Research Group, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. montazeri@acecr.ac.ir.ORCID 0000-0002-5198-9539
Samira MohammadiPopulation Health Research Group, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
Parisa M HesariDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
Marjan GhaemiVali-E-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Family Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hedyeh RiaziDepartment of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zahra Sheikhi-MobarakehQuality of Life Research Groups, Breast Cancer Research Center, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO).

methodsThe BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds.

resultsThe BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review.

conclusionsThe BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further.

Indexed as

BibliometricsGuidelines as TopicChecklistConsensusHumansBIBLIOBibliographyBibliometric reviewsChecklistReporting guideline

Identifiers

PMID38102710
PMCPMC10722750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.