Ahmad Suhaib Js, Ahmed Ahmed R, Mohajer-Bastami Ata, Moin Sarah, Sweetman Benedict, Pouwels Sjaak, Head Marion, Borucki Joseph, Lala Anil, Yang Wah, Houlden Christopher John, Garsaa Tarek, Exadaktylos Aristomenis
Department of General Surgery, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wales, UK.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2024;17(3):212-224. doi: 10.22037/ghfbb.v17i3.3005.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
主要目的是评估文章的被引次数与质量之间的关系,并与证据水平和MINORS评分进行比较。本研究的次要目的是对食管癌切除术研究领域中被引次数最多的50篇文章进行特征描述。
对用于评估研究质量的工具的需求日益增加。现有的质量评估工具包括证据水平、MINORS评分、Cochrane偏倚风险2.0工具、纽卡斯尔渥太华量表、CASP评估清单和传奇证据评估工具。
科学网可用于评估和比较食管癌切除术研究的文章。使用牛津中心证据水平分类和非随机研究的方法学指数(MINORS)对被引次数最多的50篇文章的质量进行评估。
证据水平为II级的研究比IV级被引次数更多(P = 0.008)。被引次数与MINORS评分之间存在显著正相关(P = 0.002)。II级研究中的MINORS评分中位数最高,其次是III级、IV级和I级。II级证据的MINORS评分中位数显著高于IV级(P = 0.001)。研究样本量与较高的证据水平相关,但与被引次数无关。50篇文章中有4篇的作者为女性。最近发表的文章往往被引用得更频繁。作者越多,被引次数越多。前瞻性研究更有可能被引用。
在评估文章时,被引分析可作为质量指标。然而,应谨慎使用,因为高被引作品、著名作者和期刊都更有可能被引用。被引分析应与其他成熟的工具一起使用。