ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2024
PubMed captures more fine-grained bibliographic data on scientific commentary than Web of Science: a comparative analysis.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cell homing within endodontic hydrogels: A scoping review.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Leadership and Research Productivity in Japan's Academic Departments of Regional Healthcare: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2026Article
- Identifying and Describing Best Clinical Practices for Children and Adolescents With Complex Communication Needs: A Scoping Review of Healthcare-Based Interventions.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Article
- Review
- Genetic and Epigenetic Alterations Associated With Human Prenatal Tobacco and Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure: Protocol for a Systematic Evidence Map.Public health reviews · 2025Review
- PubMed captures more fine-grained bibliographic data on scientific commentary than Web of Science: a comparative analysis.BMJ health & care informatics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch commentaries have the potential for evidence appraisal in emphasising, correcting, shaping and disseminating scientific knowledge.
objectivesTo identify the appropriate bibliographic source for capturing commentary information, this study compares comment data in PubMed and Web of Science (WoS) to assess their applicability in evidence appraisal.
methodsUsing COVID-19 as a case study, with over 27 k COVID-19 papers in PubMed as a baseline, we designed a comparative analysis for commented-commenting relations in two databases from the same dataset pool, making a fair and reliable comparison. We constructed comment networks for each database for network structural analysis and compared the characteristics of commentary materials and commented papers from various facets.
resultsFor network comparison, PubMed surpasses WoS with more closed feedback loops, reaching a deeper six-level network compared with WoS' four levels, making PubMed well-suited for evidence appraisal through argument mining. PubMed excels in identifying specialised comments, displaying significantly lower author count (mean, 3.59) and page count (mean, 1.86) than WoS (authors, 4.31, 95% CI of difference of two means = [0.66, 0.79], p<0.001; pages, 2.80, 95% CI of difference of two means = [0.87, 1.01], p<0.001), attributed to PubMed's CICO comment identification algorithm. Commented papers in PubMed also demonstrate higher citations and stronger sentiments, especially significantly elevated disputed rates (PubMed, 24.54%; WoS, 18.8%; baseline, 8.3%; all p<0.0001). Additionally, commented papers in both sources exhibit superior network centrality metrics compared with WoS-only counterparts.
conclusionConsidering the impact and controversy of commented works, the accuracy of comments and the depth of network interactions, PubMed potentially serves as a valuable resource in evidence appraisal and detection of controversial issues compared with WoS.
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.