ReviewCureus2024
Survey Research Among Neurosurgeons: A Bibliometric Review of the Characteristics, Quality, and Citation Predictors of the Top 50 Most-Influential Publications in the Neurosurgical Literature.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Survey research enables the gathering of information on individual perspectives in a large cohort. It can be epidemiological, attitude or knowledge focussed. Assessment of survey studies sampling neurosurgeons is currently lacking in the literature. This study aimed to highlight the characteristics, quality, and citation predictors of the most influential survey research studies published in the neurosurgical literature. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, the 50 most cited survey research publications were identified and reviewed. Data relating to the characteristics of the articles, participants and questionnaires were retrieved. The studies' quality and citation patterns were assessed. The median articles' age and publishing journal impact factor (IF) were 15.5 years and 2.82, respectively. Thirty-two (64%) articles were first authored by researchers from the USA while 28(56%) studies were focussed on specific disease management. The median number of participants and response rates were 222 and 51%, respectively. A full version of the questionnaire was provided in 18 (36%) articles. Only four (8%) articles reported validation of the questionnaire. The overall quality of reporting of the surveys was considered fair (based on good grading in five parameters, fair grading in one parameter, and poor grading in four parameters). The median citation number was 111. The citation analysis showed that the participant number, article age (≥15.5 years), and questionnaire category (surgical complications) were significant predictors of citation numbers. The citation rates were not influenced by the response rates or the journal's IF. In conclusion, high-impact survey publications in the neurosurgical literature were moderately cited and of fair quality. Their citation numbers were not affected by response rates but were positively influenced by the publication age, number of participants, and by novel data or the questions raised in the survey category. Surveys are valuable forms of research that require extensive planning, time, and effort in order to produce meaningful results. Increasing awareness of the factors that could affect citations may be useful to those who wish to undertake survey research.
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.