首页> 外文OA文献 >Citation classics in systematic reviews and meta-analyses : who wrote the top 100 most cited articles?
【2h】

Citation classics in systematic reviews and meta-analyses : who wrote the top 100 most cited articles?

机译:系统评价和荟萃分析中的经典著作:谁写了前100名引用最多的文章?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background:\ud\udSystematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. The aims of this study were to assess whether citation classics exist in published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM), examine the characteristics of the most frequently cited SRM articles, and evaluate the contribution of different world regions.\ud\udMethods:\ud\udThe 100 most cited SRM were identified in October 2012 using the Science Citation Index database of the Institute for Scientific Information. Data were extracted by one author. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the association between years since publication, numbers of authors, article length, journal impact factor, and average citations per year.\ud\udResults:\ud\udAmong the 100 citation classics, published between 1977 and 2008, the most cited article received 7308 citations and the least-cited 675 citations. The average citations per year ranged from 27.8 to 401.6. First authors from the USA produced the highest number of citation classics (n=46), followed by the UK (n=28) and Canada (n=15). The 100 articles were published in 42 journals led by the Journal of the American Medical Association (n=18), followed by the British Medical Journal (n=14) and The Lancet (n=13). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between number of authors (Spearman’s rho=0.320, p=0.001), journal impact factor (rho=0.240, p=0.016) and average citations per year. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between average citations per year and year since publication (rho = -0.636, p=0.0001). The most cited papers identified seminal contributions and originators of landmark methodological aspects of SRM and reflect major advances in the management of and predisposing factors for chronic diseases.\ud\udConclusions:\ud\udSince the late 1970s, the USA, UK, and Canada have taken leadership in the production of citation classic papers. No first author from low or middle-income countries (LMIC) led one of the most cited 100 SRM.
机译:背景:文献的系统评价在当前提出的证据层次中占据最高位置。这项研究的目的是评估已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析(SRM)中是否存在引用经典文献,检查最常被引用的SRM文章的特征,并评估世界不同地区的贡献。\ ud \ udMethods:\ ud \ ud使用科学信息研究所的《科学引文索引》数据库在2012年10月确定了100个被引用最多的SRM。数据由一位作者提取。 Spearman的相关性用于评估自发表以来的年数,作者人数,文章长度,期刊影响因子以及每年的平均被引用量。\ ud \ ud结果:\ ud \ ud在1977年至2008年之间发表的100篇经典著作中,被引用次数最多的文章获得了7308次引用,而被引用最少的则获得了675次引用。每年的平均引用量为27.8至401.6。美国的第一批作者撰写的经典著作数量最多(n = 46),其次是英国(n = 28)和加拿大(n = 15)。这100篇文章发表在以《美国医学会杂志》(n = 18)为首的42种期刊上,随后是《英国医学杂志》(n = 14)和《柳叶刀》(n = 13)。作者数量(Spearman的rho = 0.320,p = 0.001),期刊影响因子(rho = 0.240,p = 0.016)与每年的平均引用量之间存在统计学上的显着正相关。自发表以来,每年与每年的平均引文之间存在统计学上的显着负相关(rho = -0.636,p = 0.0001)。引用最多的论文确定了SRM具有里程碑意义的方法学方面的开创性贡献和始作俑者,反映了慢性病管理和诱发因素的重大进展。\ ud \ ud结论:\ ud \ ud自1970年代后期以来,美国,英国和加拿大在引用经典论文的生产中处于领导地位。来自中低收入国家(LMIC)的第一作者中没有一位是被引用最多的100 SRM之一。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号