ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2024
Online Visibility and Scientific Relevance of Strabismus Research: Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality and accuracy of online scientific data are crucial, given that the internet and social media serve nowadays as primary sources of medical knowledge.
objectiveThis study aims to analyze the relationship between scientific relevance and online visibility of strabismus research to answer the following questions: (1) Are the most popular strabismus papers scientifically relevant? (2) Are the most high-impact strabismus studies shared enough online?
methodsThe Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was used as a proxy for online visibility, whereas citations and the journal's impact factor (IF) served as a metric for scientific relevance. Using "strabismus" as a keyword, 100 papers with the highest AAS and 100 papers with the highest number of citations were identified. Statistical analyses, including the Spearman rank test, linear regression, and factor analysis, were performed to assess the relationship between AAS, citations, a journal's IF, and mentions across 18 individual Web 2.0 platforms.
resultsA weak, positive, statistically significant correlation was observed between normalized AAS and normalized citations (P<.001; r=0.27) for papers with high visibility. Only Twitter mentions and Mendeley readers correlated significantly with normalized citations (P=.02 and P<.001, respectively) and IF (P=.04 and P=.009, respectively), with Twitter being the strongest significant predictor of citation numbers (r=0.53). For high-impact papers, no correlation was found between normalized citations and normalized AAS (P=.12) or the IF of the journal (P=.55).
conclusionsWhile clinical relevance influences online attention, most high-impact research related to strabismus is not sufficiently shared on the web. Therefore, researchers should make a greater effort to share high-impact papers related to strabismus on online media platforms to improve accessibility and quality of evidence-based knowledge for patients.
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.