Altmetrics can capture research evidence: an analysis across types of studies in COVID-19 literature

Author:

Valderrama-Baca Pilar1ORCID,Arroyo-Machado Wenceslao1ORCID,Torres-Salinas Daniel1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Universidad de Granada

Abstract

COVID-19 has greatly impacted science. It has become a global research front that constitutes a unique phenomenon of interest for the scientometric community. Accordingly, there has been a proliferation of descriptive studies on COVID-19 papers using altmetrics. Social media metrics serve to elucidate how research is shared and discussed, and one of the key points is to determine which factors are well-conditioned altmetric values. The main objective of this study is to analyze whether the altmetric mentions of COVID-19 medical studies are associated with the type of study and its level of evidence. Data were collected from the PubMed and Altmetric.com databases. A total of 16,672 publications by study types (e.g., case reports, clinical trials, or meta-analyses) that were published in the year 2021 and that had at least one altmetric mention were retrieved. The altmetric indicators considered were Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), news mentions, Twitter mentions, and Mendeley readers. Once the dataset of COVID-19 had been created, the first step was to carry out a descriptive study. Then, a normality hypothesis was evaluated by means of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and since this was significant in all cases, the overall comparison of groups was performed using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test. When this test rejected the null hypothesis, pairwise comparisons were performed with the Mann–Whitney U test, and the intensity of the possible association was measured using Cramer’s V coefficient. The results suggest that the data do not fit a normal distribution. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed coincidences in five groups of study types: The altmetric indicator with most coincidences was news mentions, and the study types with the most coincidences were the systematic reviews together with the meta-analyses, which coincided with four altmetric indicators. Likewise, between the study types and the altmetric indicators, a weak but significant association was observed through the chi-square and Cramer’s V. It can thus be concluded that the positive association between altmetrics and study types in medicine could reflect the level of the “pyramid” of scientific evidence.

Publisher

Ediciones Profesionales de la Informacion SL

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems,General Medicine

Reference39 articles.

1. Arieta-Miranda, Jessica M.; Ruiz-Yasuda, Catherine C.; Pérez-Vargas, Luis-Fernando; Torres-Ricse, Dayhanne A.; Díaz, Solange-Pérez; Arieta, Yosseline-Chávez; Victorio, Daniel-José-Blanco; Ramos, Gilmer-Torres (2022). “New pyramid proposal for the levels of scientific evidence according to SIGN”. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, v. 149, n. 4, pp. 841e-843e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008946

2. Aristovnik, Aleksander; Ravšelj, Dejan; Umek, Lan (2020). “A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 across science and social science research landscape”. Sustainability, v. 12, n. 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219132

3. Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao; Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Robinson-García, Nicolás (2021). “Identifying and characterizing social media communities: A socio-semantic network approach to altmetrics”. Scientometrics, v. 126, n. 11, pp. 9267-9289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04167-8

4. Arsenault, Benoit J. (2022). “From the garden to the clinic: How Mendelian randomization is shaping up atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention strategies”. European heart journal, v. 43, n. 42, pp. 4447-4449. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac394

5. Bhandari, Mohit; Montori, Victor M.; Devereaux, Philip J.; Wilczynski, Nancy L.; Morgan, Douglas; Haynes, R. Brian (2004). “Doubling the impact: Publication of systematic review articles in orthopaedic journals”. JBJS, v. 86, n. 5. https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Fulltext/2004/05000/Doubling_the_Impact__Publication_of_Systematic.19.aspx

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3