Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2019
Bibliometric Analysis of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: High Citation Rates but Low Evidence.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Diniz-Freitas Márcio, Pena-Cristobal Maite, Pérez-López Daniel, Lago-Méndez Lucía, Fernández-Feijoo Javier, Limeres-Posse Jacobo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Citation analysis is one of the most commonly used bibliometric tools for measuring the academic importance of a report in a specific area of knowledge. The objective of the present study was to identify the 100 most cited reports on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), determine their main bibliometric characteristics, and identify the bibliometric variables that affected the citation rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a data search in the Scopus database to determine the number of MRONJ article citations up to September 30, 2018. We next selected the 100 most referenced studies and recorded the following information: ranking according to the number of citations; citation density; number and names of authors; language and year of publication; country and institution of origin; financial support; journal name, impact factor, category, and quartile; type of research; evidence level; and area of study.
RESULTS: The 100 most cited reports had a mean citation density of 21.7 ± 20.7 (range, 6.2 to 99.4) and an h-index of 96. The 100 most cited reports on MRONJ had been published in 42 scientific journals, classified into 10 separate categories of the Journal Citation Reports; 56% of the articles were in the first quartile of their category. Most of the studies had been classified with a level of evidence of 4 (n = 45) or 5 (n = 29). In the bivariate analyses, only the conflict of interest (P = .002) was associated with citation density. After adjusting for numerous variables, conflict of interest (r = 0.27; P = .020) and country of the first author (r = 0.23; P = .043) were significantly associated with citation density.
CONCLUSIONS: The 100 most cited studies of MRONJ had a large number of citations and had been reported in journals with a high impact factor; however, the studies had a generally low evidence level and randomized clinical trials were lacking.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a data search in the Scopus database to determine the number of MRONJ article citations up to September 30, 2018. We next selected the 100 most referenced studies and recorded the following information: ranking according to the number of citations; citation density; number and names of authors; language and year of publication; country and institution of origin; financial support; journal name, impact factor, category, and quartile; type of research; evidence level; and area of study.
RESULTS: The 100 most cited reports had a mean citation density of 21.7 ± 20.7 (range, 6.2 to 99.4) and an h-index of 96. The 100 most cited reports on MRONJ had been published in 42 scientific journals, classified into 10 separate categories of the Journal Citation Reports; 56% of the articles were in the first quartile of their category. Most of the studies had been classified with a level of evidence of 4 (n = 45) or 5 (n = 29). In the bivariate analyses, only the conflict of interest (P = .002) was associated with citation density. After adjusting for numerous variables, conflict of interest (r = 0.27; P = .020) and country of the first author (r = 0.23; P = .043) were significantly associated with citation density.
CONCLUSIONS: The 100 most cited studies of MRONJ had a large number of citations and had been reported in journals with a high impact factor; however, the studies had a generally low evidence level and randomized clinical trials were lacking.