Thông tin sản phẩm

EconPapers: A new database of the references on international clinical practice guidelines: a facility for the evaluation of clinical research

Bạn đang xem: EconPapers: A new database of the references on international clinical practice guidelines: a facility for the evaluation of clinical research

A new database of the references on international clinical practice guidelines: a facility for the evaluation of clinical research

Magnus Eriksson (), Annika Billhult (), Tommy Billhult (), Elena Pallari () and Grant Lewison ()
Additional contact information
Magnus Eriksson: Minso Solutions AB
Annika Billhult: Minso Solutions AB
Tommy Billhult: Minso Solutions AB
Elena Pallari: King’s College London
Grant Lewison: King’s College London

Scientometrics

, 2020, vol. 122, issue 2, No 21, 1235 pages

Abstract: Abstract Although there are now several bibliographic databases of research publications, such as Google Scholar, Pubmed, Scopus, and the Web of Science (WoS), and some also include counts of citations, there is at present no similarly comprehensive database of the rapidly growing number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), with their references, which sometimes number in the hundreds. CPGs have been shown to be useful for the evaluation of clinical (as opposed to basic) biomedical research, which often suffers from relatively low counts of citations in the serial literature. The objectives were to introduce a new citation database, clinical impact®, and demonstrate how it can be used to evaluate research impact of clinical research publications by exploring the characteristics of CPG citations of two sets of papers, as well as show temporal variation of clinical impact® and the WoS. The paper includes the methodology used to retain the data and also the rationale adopted to achieve data quality. The analysis showed that although CPGs tend preferentially to cite papers from their own country, this is not always the case. It also showed that cited papers tend to have a more clinical research level than uncited papers. An analysis of diachronous citations in both clinical impact® and the WoS showed that although the WoS citations showed a decreasing trend after a peak at 2–3 years after publication, this was less clear for CPG citations and a longer timescale would be needed to evaluate their impact on these documents.

Keywords:

Research papers

;

Clinical practice guidelines

;

References

;

Clinical research evaluation

;

Clinical impact

(search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References:

View references in EconPapers

View complete reference list from CitEc

Citations:

Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)

http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03318-2

Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers:

Search

for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link:

https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03318-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI:

10.1007/s11192-019-03318-2

Access Statistics

for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles

in Scientometrics from

Springer

,

Akadémiai Kiadó


Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla ().

Chuyên mục: Thông tin sản phẩm

Related Articles

Trả lời

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai. Các trường bắt buộc được đánh dấu *

Back to top button