科学引文倾向于正面结果：一项系统评价与荟萃分析。
Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
作者信息
Duyx Bram, Urlings Miriam J E, Swaen Gerard M H, Bouter Lex M, Zeegers Maurice P
机构信息
CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands; NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands; NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
出版信息
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;88:92-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002. Epub 2017 Jun 8.
OBJECTIVES
Citation bias concerns the selective citation of scientific articles based on their results. We brought together all available evidence on citation bias across scientific disciplines and quantified its impact.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
An extensive search strategy was applied to the Web of Science Core Collection and Medline, yielding 52 studies in total. We classified these studies on scientific discipline, selection method, and other variables. We also performed random-effects meta-analyses to pool the effect of positive vs. negative results on subsequent citations. Finally, we checked for other determinants of citation as reported in the citation bias literature.
RESULTS
Evidence for the occurrence of citation bias was most prominent in the biomedical sciences and least in the natural sciences. Articles with statistically significant results were cited 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-1.8) times more often than articles with nonsignificant results. Articles in which the authors explicitly conclude to have found support for their hypothesis were cited 2.7 (CI 2.0-3.7) times as often. Article results and journal impact factor were associated with citation more often than any other reported determinant.
CONCLUSION
Similar to what we already know on publication bias, also citation bias can lead to an overrepresentation of positive results and unfounded beliefs.
目的
引文偏倚涉及基于科学文章的结果对其进行选择性引用。我们汇总了各科学学科中关于引文偏倚的所有现有证据，并对其影响进行了量化。
研究设计与设置
我们对科学引文索引核心合集和医学期刊数据库应用了广泛的检索策略，共获得52项研究。我们根据科学学科、选择方法和其他变量对这些研究进行了分类。我们还进行了随机效应荟萃分析，以汇总阳性结果与阴性结果对后续引用的影响。最后，我们检查了引文偏倚文献中报道的其他引文决定因素。
结果
引文偏倚发生的证据在生物医学科学中最为显著，在自然科学中最少。具有统计学显著结果的文章被引用的频率比无显著结果的文章高1.6倍（95%置信区间[CI] 1.3 - 1.8）。作者明确得出支持其假设结论的文章被引用的频率是其他文章的2.7倍（CI 2.0 - 3.7）。文章结果和期刊影响因子比其他任何报道的决定因素更常与引文相关。
结论
与我们已知的发表偏倚情况类似，引文偏倚也可能导致阳性结果的过度呈现和无根据的信念。
Zotero 插件