Bibliometric analysis of the top-cited articles on idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
To identify and characterize the top-cited articles on idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
METHODS
We used "Web of Science database" to identify the top-cited articles published between the years of 1975-2017. The articles were evaluated using citation count and other factors that have an effect on the citation count.
RESULTS
The search yielded a total of 2,141 articles and the most frequently cited articles received between 58-476 citations. Most articles were published between the years 1990-1999. The most popular study design involved natural history studies. USA ranked first in productivity with 72 articles and the leading institution was University of Iowa. The journal "Neurology" published the greatest number of articles. In assessing the specialties, neurology contributed to 32% of top 100 articles. There was no correlation between the citation count and number of references, years since publication, number of authors, authors' H-index, and number of institutions that had collaborated. There were positive correlations between the citation count and journal impact factor, Scimago journal rank and journal source-normalized impact per paper values. While descriptive keywords were more frequent between 1980s and 1990s, keywords describing surgical management options such as "nerve sheath decompression" and "cerebrospinal-fluid diversion" were top-listed keywords after the year 2000.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study can help researchers identify the most significant and impactful articles on idiopathic intracranial hypertension, as well as to provide insight into the most noteworthy scientific trends and to visualize future research needs of the topic.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.