ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2026
Assessing Research Impact With Bibliometrics and Altmetrics: The Case of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES).
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing Research Impact With Bibliometrics and Altmetrics: The Case of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES).Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
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
Abstract
purposeOur purpose was to measure the research output and impact of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES).
methodsWe used OpenAlex to collect metadata on citation counts for all 115 CNODES articles published between January 2011 and March 2022. We obtained the altmetric scores from Altmetric.com. We examined mean citation counts and altmetric scores overall and by publication venue, study type, and author characteristics. We used general linear and mixed effects modeling to examine the association of citation counts/altmetric scores with the following characteristics: author's gender, trainee status and institution, study design, journal venue, article type, and jurisdiction(s) of data.
resultsIn total, 232 authors co-authored at least one publication. While about half of authors were women, men accounted for two-thirds of authorships. Trainees accounted for 28% of first authorships. The median citation count was 19.0 (interquartile range: 9.0-52.0), and the median altmetrics score was 4.0 (interquartile range: 1.0-22.0). Compared with original, observational research, methodologic research was associated with a lower altmetric score (adjusted difference: -57.4, 95% CI: -87.7; -27.1) but not citation counts (adjusted difference: 40.5, 95% CI: -26.2; 107.1). Publication in a "top 10" medical journal was associated with higher citation counts (adjusted difference: 89.8, 95% CI: 42.1, 137.5) and altmetric scores (adjusted difference: 168.3, 95% CI: 91.1, 245.5) scores.
conclusionsThe patterns identified using bibliometrics and altmetrics demonstrated CNODES's author and institutional networks and their publications' mobilization and use by the academic community and broader publics.
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.