IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v109y2016i2d10.1007_s11192-016-2112-1.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this article

Are citations from clinical trials evidence of higher impact research? An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Thelwall

    (University of Wolverhampton)

  • Kayvan Kousha

    (University of Wolverhampton)

Abstract

An important way in which medical research can translate into improved health outcomes is by motivating or influencing clinical trials that eventually lead to changes in clinical practice. Citations from clinical trials records to academic research may therefore serve as an early warning of the likely future influence of the cited articles. This paper partially assesses this hypothesis by testing whether prior articles referenced in ClinicalTrials.gov records are more highly cited than average for the publishing journal. The results from four high profile general medical journals support the hypothesis, although there may not be a cause-and effect relationship. Nevertheless, it is reasonable for researchers to use citations to their work from clinical trials records as evidence of the possible long-term impact of their research.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2016. "Are citations from clinical trials evidence of higher impact research? An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1341-1351, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2112-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2112-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2112-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-2112-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jamist:v:63:y:2012:i:3:p:481-489 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Fairclough, Ruth & Thelwall, Mike, 2015. "More precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 895-906.
    3. Derya Akcan & Susanna Axelsson & Christina Bergh & Thomas Davidson & Måns Rosén, 2013. "Methodological quality in clinical trials and bibliometric indicators: no evidence of correlations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 297-303, July.
    4. Christina H. Drew & Kristianna G. Pettibone & Fallis Owen Finch & Douglas Giles & Paul Jordan, 2016. "Automated Research Impact Assessment: a new bibliometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 987-1005, March.
    5. Mike Thelwall & Nabeil Maflahi, 2016. "Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(4), pages 960-966, April.
    6. Michel Zitt, 2012. "The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J.K. Vanclay’s article 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 485-503, August.
    7. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2001. "Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(2), pages 199-214, February.
    8. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2013. "Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 383-395, November.
    9. Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras, 2010. "The impact factor's Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(2), pages 424-427, February.
    10. Carolina Riveros & Agnes Dechartres & Elodie Perrodeau & Romana Haneef & Isabelle Boutron & Philippe Ravaud, 2013. "Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Jing-Yuan Chiou & Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2016. "Learning from successes and failures in pharmaceutical R&D," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 271-290, May.
    12. Bárbara S. Lancho Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero Bote & Zaida Chinchilla Rodríguez & Félix de Moya Anegón, 2012. "Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 481-489, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    2. Xin Li & Xuli Tang & Wei Lu, 2024. "How biomedical papers accumulated their clinical citations: a large-scale retrospective analysis based on PubMed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3315-3339, June.
    3. Li, Xin & Tang, Xuli & Cheng, Qikai, 2022. "Predicting the clinical citation count of biomedical papers using multilayer perceptron neural network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    4. Dongyu Zang & Chunli Liu, 2023. "Exploring the clinical translation intensity of papers published by the world’s top scientists in basic medicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2371-2416, April.
    5. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo & José-Antonio Ontalba-Ruipérez & Ferrán Catalá-López, 2023. "Evaluating the online impact of reporting guidelines for randomised trial reports and protocols: a cross-sectional web-based data analysis of CONSORT and SPIRIT initiatives," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 407-440, January.
    6. Diana Hicks & Julia Melkers & Kimberley R. Isett, 2019. "A characterization of professional media and its links to research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 827-843, May.
    7. Christian Thiele & Gerrit Hirschfeld & Ruth Brachel, 2021. "Clinical trial registries as Scientometric data: A novel solution for linking and deduplicating clinical trials from multiple registries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9733-9750, December.
    8. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Mahshid Abdoli, 2017. "Is medical research informing professional practice more highly cited? Evidence from AHFS DI Essentials in drugs.com," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 509-527, July.

    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. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    2. Thelwall, Mike, 2017. "Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 128-151.
    3. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 263-272.
    4. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    5. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2018. "Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 495-509, October.
    6. Thelwall, Mike & Sud, Pardeep, 2016. "National, disciplinary and temporal variations in the extent to which articles with more authors have more impact: Evidence from a geometric field normalised citation indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 48-61.
    7. Tudorel Andrei & Daniel Teodorescu & Andreea Mirică, 2016. "Beyond the Impact Factor: measuring the international visibility of Romanian social sciences journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2013. "Citation increments between collaborating countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 817-831, March.
    9. Thelwall, Mike, 2016. "Are there too many uncited articles? Zero inflated variants of the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 622-633.
    10. Thelwall, Mike, 2016. "The precision of the arithmetic mean, geometric mean and percentiles for citation data: An experimental simulation modelling approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 110-123.
    11. Xiancheng Li & Wenge Rong & Haoran Shi & Jie Tang & Zhang Xiong, 2018. "The impact of conference ranking systems in computer science: a comparative regression analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 879-907, August.
    12. Yifan Qian & Wenge Rong & Nan Jiang & Jie Tang & Zhang Xiong, 2017. "Citation regression analysis of computer science publications in different ranking categories and subfields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1351-1374, March.
    13. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni Battista Ramello, 2018. "The market of academic attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 113-133, January.
    14. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    15. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    16. Abdelghani Maddi & Aouatif de La Laurencie, 2018. "La dynamique des SHS françaises dans le Web of Science : un manque de représentativité ou de visibilité internationale ?," Working Papers hal-01922266, HAL.
    17. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    18. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    19. Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & J. Ahimbisibwe & Rita Van Moll & Nico Koedam, 2003. "Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 329-343, March.
    20. Peter Sjögårde & Fereshteh Didegah, 2022. "The association between topic growth and citation impact of research publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1903-1921, April.

    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:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2112-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.