A Web-Based Systematic Review on Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Comparing the "Citation Classics" with the Consumers' Perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although the citation index of an article is not a direct measure of its quality or importance, it is a measure of recognition that may suggest its impact on the scientific community. This study was undertaken to examine the characteristics of the top 100 most frequently cited articles (so-called "citation classics") on traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) that were published between 1986 and 2003, and to compare this selected professional literature with the consumers' perspective on the key issues in SCI research. The 100 top-cited articles on traumatic SCI were identified using the Internet database of the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Web of Science with the terms "spinal cord injury" and "spinal cord injuries." Meeting abstracts, letters, and editorials were excluded. No language restriction was applied. From a consumers' perspective, the areas of greatest interest for people with SCI as reported in two previous large-scale surveys include motor function, bowel and bladder control, sexual function, and pain. The final list of citation classics on traumatic SCI included 82 original articles and 18 article reviews, which were cited 146 times on average. Topics on basic science (63%) were more frequent than clinical studies (37%). The years of publication were distributed in a bell-shape curve with a peak between 1992 and 1994. North American and European centers (99%) led the list of the citation classics. Most of the top 100 most frequently cited articles on traumatic SCI (63%) explicitly focused on at least one of the topics of greatest interest to individuals with SCI. Motor function was the leading topic in the matching list between professional literature and consumers' perspective. This bibliometric analysis, for the first time, identifies the key features of the citation classics on traumatic SCI between 1986 and 2003, a period that represents one of an unprecedented increase in knowledge in this field. The 100 top-cited peer-reviewed articles have been predominantly focused on basic science SCI research indicating a need for greater bench-to-bedside translational studies in SCI research. Although the body of this top-cited professional literature mostly matches with the consumers' perspective, most of this research has been focused on motor function assessment and recovery following SCI.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».