Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Aug;17(5):1363-1374. doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-02939-5. Epub 2022 Feb 9.
Recent literature has demonstrated the associations between social media attention, as measured by altmetric attention score (AAS), and higher citation rates across medical disciplines. Despite increasing use of AAS, an understanding of factors associated with higher AAS and social media attention remains lacking. Furthermore, if this increased attention correlates with a higher methodological quality and lower biases has not been determined. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to determine the relationship between methodological quality, study biases and the AAS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All RCTs from 2016 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Society (JAMA), and Lancet were extracted and the (1) AAS; (2) Methodological Bias (JADAD Scale); Study Bias (Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for RCTs) recorded. A total of 296 RCTs with a median (range) AAS and citation rate per article of 234.0(7-4079) and 165.0(4-3257), respectively, were included. The AAS was positively associated with citation rate (β 0.19, 95% CI 0.10-0.29; P < 0.001). Methodological bias was not associated with the AAS (β - 36.3, 95% CI - 83.5-10.9; P = 0.131), but was negatively associated with higher citation rates (β - 66.4, 95% CI - 106.0 to - 26.9; P = 0.001). The number of study biases was not associated with the AAS (β 43.7, 95% CI - 6.3-93.7;P = 0.086), but was positively associated with a higher citation rate (β 64.5, 95% CI 22.4-106.6; P = 0.003). The online attention of RCTs in medical journals was not necessarily reflective of high methodological quality and minimal study biases, but was associated with higher citation rates. Researchers and clinicians should critically examine each article despite the amount of online attention an article receives as the AAS does not necessarily reflect article quality.
最近的文献表明，社交媒体关注度（通过 altmetric 关注度得分 [AAS] 衡量）与医学各学科的更高引用率之间存在关联。尽管 AAS 的使用越来越多，但人们对与更高的 AAS 和社交媒体关注度相关的因素仍了解甚少。此外，如果这种关注度的增加与更高的方法学质量和更低的偏倚相关，目前还没有确定。因此，本研究的目的是确定随机对照试验（RCT）中方法学质量、研究偏倚和 AAS 之间的关系。从新英格兰医学杂志（NEJM）、美国医学协会杂志（JAMA）和柳叶刀杂志 2016 年的所有 RCT 中提取并记录（1）AAS；（2）方法学偏差（JADAD 量表）；研究偏倚（Cochrane RCT 偏倚风险工具）。共纳入 296 项 RCT，中位数（范围）AAS 和每篇文章的引用率分别为 234.0（7-4079）和 165.0（4-3257）。AAS 与引用率呈正相关（β 0.19，95%CI 0.10-0.29；P<0.001）。方法学偏差与 AAS 无关（β-36.3，95%CI-83.5-10.9；P=0.131），但与更高的引用率呈负相关（β-66.4，95%CI-106.0 至-26.9；P=0.001）。研究偏倚的数量与 AAS 无关（β 43.7，95%CI-6.3-93.7；P=0.086），但与更高的引用率呈正相关（β 64.5，95%CI 22.4-106.6；P=0.003）。医学期刊 RCT 的在线关注度并不一定反映出高方法学质量和最小的研究偏倚，但与更高的引用率相关。尽管文章获得的在线关注度很高，但研究人员和临床医生仍应批判性地检查每一篇文章，因为 AAS 不一定反映文章质量。
