A Systematic Bibliometric Analysis of High-Impact Articles in Critical Care Nephrology
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Critical care nephrology is a subspecialty that merges critical care and nephrology in response to shared pathobiology, clinical care, and technological innovations. To date, there has been no description of the highest impact articles. Accordingly, we systematically identified high impact articles in critical care nephrology. METHODS: This was a bibliometric analysis. The search was developed by a research librarian. Web of Science was searched for articles published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2020. Articles required a minimum of 30 citations, publication in English language, and reporting of primary (or secondary) original data. Articles were screened by two reviewers for eligibility and further adjudicated by three experts. The "Top 100" articles were hierarchically ranked by adjudication, citations in the 2 years following publication and journal impact factor (IF). For each article, we extracted detailed bibliometric data. Risk of bias was assessed for randomized trials by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: The search yielded 2,805 articles. Following initial screening, 307 articles were selected for full review and adjudication. The Top 100 articles were published across 20 journals (median [IQR] IF 10.6 [8.9-56.3]), 38% were published in the 5 years ending in 2020 and 62% were open access. The agreement between adjudicators was excellent (intraclass correlation, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). Of the Top 100, 44% were randomized trials, 35% were observational, 14% were systematic reviews, 6% were nonrandomized interventional studies and one article was a consensus document. The risk of bias among randomized trials was low. Common subgroup themes were RRT (42%), AKI (30%), fluids/resuscitation (14%), pediatrics (10%), interventions (8%), and perioperative care (6%). The citations for the Top 100 articles were 175 (95-393) and 9 were cited >1,000 times. CONCLUSION: Critical care nephrology has matured as an important subspecialty of critical care and nephrology. These high impact papers have focused largely on original studies, mostly clinical trials, within a few core themes. This list can be leveraged for curricula development, to stimulate research, and for quality assurance.
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.
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 | 0,077 | 0,115 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,213 | 0,479 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
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 découle