IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v112y2017i1d10.1007_s11192-017-2292-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is medical research informing professional practice more highly cited? Evidence from AHFS DI Essentials in drugs.com

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Thelwall

    (University of Wolverhampton)

  • Kayvan Kousha

    (University of Wolverhampton)

  • Mahshid Abdoli

    (University of Wolverhampton)

Abstract

Citation-based indicators are often used to help evaluate the impact of published medical studies, even though the research has the ultimate goal of improving human wellbeing. One direct way of influencing health outcomes is by guiding physicians and other medical professionals about which drugs to prescribe. A high profile source of this guidance is the AHFS DI Essentials product of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which gives systematic information for drug prescribers. AHFS DI Essentials documents, which are also indexed by Drugs.com, include references to academic studies and the referenced work is therefore helping patients by guiding drug prescribing. This article extracts AHFS DI Essentials documents from Drugs.com and assesses whether articles referenced in these information sheets have their value recognised by higher Scopus citation counts. A comparison of mean log-transformed citation counts between articles that are and are not referenced in AHFS DI Essentials shows that AHFS DI Essentials references are more highly cited than average for the publishing journal. This suggests that medical research influencing drug prescribing is more cited than average.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2292-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2292-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2292-3
    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/s11192-017-2292-3?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. 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.
    2. Jonathan Grant, 1999. "Evaluating the outcomes of biomedical research on healthcare," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 33-38, April.
    3. Mike Thelwall & David Stuart, 2006. "Web crawling ethics revisited: Cost, privacy, and denial of service," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(13), pages 1771-1779, November.
    4. Éric Archambault & David Campbell & Yves Gingras & Vincent Larivière, 2009. "Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(7), pages 1320-1326, July.
    5. 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.
    6. B Ian Hutchins & Xin Yuan & James M Anderson & George M Santangelo, 2016. "Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Thelwall, Mike, 2016. "Citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 863-874.
    9. Thelwall, Mike, 2017. "Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 128-151.
    10. Derek De Solla Price, 1976. "A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 27(5), pages 292-306, September.
    11. Francis Narin & Gabriel Pinski & Helen Hofer Gee, 1976. "Structure of the Biomedical Literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 27(1), pages 25-45, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2017. "The accuracy of confidence intervals for field normalised indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 530-540.
    3. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 1125-1131, August.
    4. Thelwall, Mike, 2017. "Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 128-151.
    5. Mike Thelwall, 2019. "The influence of highly cited papers on field normalised indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 519-537, February.
    6. 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).
    7. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 430-435.
    8. 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.
    9. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1721-1731, December.
    10. Michel Zitt, 2015. "Meso-level retrieval: IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2223-2245, March.
    11. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    12. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1031-1041.
    13. Michael Taylor, 2023. "Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow: five altmetric sources observed over a decade show evolving trends, by research age, attention source maturity and open access status," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2175-2200, April.
    14. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo & J. Sylvan Katz, 2018. "The power law relationship between citation impact and multi-authorship patterns in articles in Information Science & Library Science journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 919-932, March.
    15. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Alberto Martín-Martín & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2018. "Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2175-2188, September.
    18. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V. & Shmatko, Natalia A., 2023. "Uncited papers in the structure of scientific communication," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    19. Thelwall, Mike, 2016. "Are the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions plausible for citation data?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 454-470.
    20. Hui-Zhen Fu & Ludo Waltman, 2022. "A large-scale bibliometric analysis of global climate change research between 2001 and 2018," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-21, February.

    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:112:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2292-3. 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.