ReviewGastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench2024
Evaluating the effectiveness of citation count as a measure of methodological quality in esophagogastric surgery research: a comparative analysis with the MINORS score and levels of evidence.
Review in Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The primary objective was to assess the relationship between the citation number and the quality of the articles, as compared with the level of evidence and the MINORS score. This study's secondary objective was to characterize the 50 most cited articles in the field of oesophagectomy research. Background: There has been an increased need for an evaluation tool to indicate research quality. Available quality assessment tools include the Level of Evidence, the MINORS score, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool, the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, CASP Appraisal Checklists, and Legend Evidence Evaluation tools. Methods: The Web of Science allowed evaluating and comparing articles on oesophagectomy research. The quality of the 50 most cited articles was assessed using the Oxford Centre level of evidence classification and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Results: Level of evidence II studies were cited more than level IV (P=0.008). There was a significant positive correlation between citation number and MINORS score (P=0.002). The median MINORS score was highest amongst level II studies, followed by levels III, IV, and I. The median MINORS score for level II evidence was significantly higher than for level IV (P=0.001). The study sample size is associated with higher levels of evidence but does not correlate with the citation number. Female authors contributed to 4 out of 50 articles. Recently published articles tended to be cited more frequently. More authors equated to more citations. Prospective studies are more likely to be cited. Conclusion: Citation analysis can be used as an indicator of quality when assessing articles. It should, however, be used with caution as highly cited work, famous authors, and journals are all more likely to be cited. Citation analysis should be used alongside other well-established tools.
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.