IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0175419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas
  • Juan Ruano
  • Francisco Gomez-Garcia
  • Patricia Alcalde-Mellado
  • Jesus Gay-Mimbrera
  • Macarena Aguilar-Luque
  • Beatriz Maestre-Lopez
  • Marcelino Gonzalez-Padilla
  • Pedro J Carmona-Fernandez
  • Antonio Velez Garcia-Nieto
  • Beatriz Isla-Tejera

Abstract

Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors’ collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas & Juan Ruano & Francisco Gomez-Garcia & Patricia Alcalde-Mellado & Jesus Gay-Mimbrera & Macarena Aguilar-Luque & Beatriz Maestre-Lopez & Marcelino Gonzalez-Padilla & Pedro J , 2017. "Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0175419
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175419
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175419&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0175419?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Whitfield, 2008. "Collaboration: Group theory," Nature, Nature, vol. 455(7214), pages 720-723, October.
    2. Michelle A. Lowes & Anne M. Bowcock & James G. Krueger, 2007. "Pathogenesis and therapy of psoriasis," Nature, Nature, vol. 445(7130), pages 866-873, February.
    3. Itay Mayrose & Shiri Freilich, 2015. "The Interplay between Scientific Overlap and Cooperation and the Resulting Gain in Co-Authorship Interactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. Satya Ranjan Sahu & Krushna Chandra Panda, 2014. "Does the multi-authorship trend influence the quality of an article?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2161-2168, March.
    5. John P A Ioannidis, 2008. "Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-8, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Lazăr Vlăsceanu, 2014. "Fragmented Romanian Sociology: Growth and Structure of the Collaboration Network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    2. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    3. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    4. Liu, Jie & Ge, Huilin, 2022. "Collaboration mechanisms and community detection of statisticians based on ERGMs and kNN-walktrap," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    5. João Carlos Nabout & Micael Rosa Parreira & Fabrício Barreto Teresa & Fernanda Melo Carneiro & Hélida Ferreira Cunha & Luciana Souza Ondei & Samantha Salomão Caramori & Thannya Nascimento Soares, 2015. "Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 357-364, January.
    6. Smith, Thomas Bryan & Vacca, Raffaele & Krenz, Till & McCarty, Christopher, 2021. "Great minds think alike, or do they often differ? Research topic overlap and the formation of scientific teams," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    7. Ronnie Ramlogan & Davide Consoli, 2014. "Dynamics of collaborative research medicine: the case of glaucoma," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 544-566, August.
    8. Liu, Meijun & Jaiswal, Ajay & Bu, Yi & Min, Chao & Yang, Sijie & Liu, Zhibo & Acuña, Daniel & Ding, Ying, 2022. "Team formation and team impact: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    9. Meen Chul Kim & Yoo Kyung Jeong & Min Song, 2014. "Investigating the integrated landscape of the intellectual topology of bioinformatics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 309-335, October.
    10. Fahimeh Ghasemian & Kamran Zamanifar & Nasser Ghasem-Aqaee & Noshir Contractor, 2016. "Toward a better scientific collaboration success prediction model through the feature space expansion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 777-801, August.
    11. M. P. Rozing & T. N. Leeuwen & P. H. Reitsma & F. R. Rosendaal & N. A. Aziz, 2020. "Freeloading in biomedical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 47-55, January.
    12. Jordi Duch & Joshua S Waitzman & Luís A Nunes Amaral, 2010. "Quantifying the Performance of Individual Players in a Team Activity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(6), pages 1-7, June.
    13. José Alberto Molina & David Iñiguez & Gonzalo Ruiz & Alfonso Tarancón, 2018. "The Nobel Prize in Economics: individual or collective merits?," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 966, Boston College Department of Economics.
    14. Hongquan Shen & Juan Xie & Jiang Li & Ying Cheng, 2021. "The correlation between scientific collaboration and citation count at the paper level: a meta-analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3443-3470, April.
    15. Young-Hwan Lee, 2021. "Determinants of research productivity in Korean Universities: the role of research funding," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1462-1486, October.
    16. Zhikai Wang & Yang Sun & Fangzhou Lou & Jing Bai & Hong Zhou & Xiaojie Cai & Libo Sun & Qianqian Yin & Sibei Tang & Yue Wu & Li Fan & Zhenyao Xu & Hong Wang & Xiaoyu Hu & Honglin Wang, 2022. "Targeting the transcription factor HES1 by L-menthol restores protein phosphatase 6 in keratinocytes in models of psoriasis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. David Swanson & Luis Santamaria, 2021. "Pandemic Supply Chain Research: A Structured Literature Review and Bibliometric Network Analysis," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-22, January.
    18. Zaggl, Michael A. & Pottbäcker, Judith, 2021. "Facilitators and inhibitors for integrating expertise diversity in innovation teams: The case of plasmid exchange in molecular biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    19. Winnink, J.J. & Tijssen, Robert J.W. & van Raan, A.F.J., 2019. "Searching for new breakthroughs in science: How effective are computerised detection algorithms?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 673-686.
    20. B Ian Hutchins & Matthew T Davis & Rebecca A Meseroll & George M Santangelo, 2019. "Predicting translational progress in biomedical research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-25, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0175419. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.