대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제53권5호
  • /
  • Pages.328-335
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Does the quality of orthodontic studies influence their Altmetric Attention Score?

  • Thamer Alsaif (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College Londo) ;
  • Nikolaos Pandis (Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern) ;
  • Martyn T. Cobourne (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College Londo) ;
  • Jadbinder Seehra (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College Londo)
  • 투고 : 2022.04.20
  • 심사 : 2023.08.25
  • 발행 : 2023.09.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether an association between study quality, other study characteristics, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs) existed in orthodontic studies. Methods: The Scopus database was searched to identify orthodontic studies published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Articles that satisfied the eligibility criteria were included in this study. Study characteristics, including study quality were extracted and entered into a pre-pilot data collection sheet. Descriptive statistics were calculated. On an exploratory basis, random forest and gradient boosting machine learning algorithms were used to examine the influence of article characteristics on AAS. Results: In total, 586 studies with an AAS were analyzed. Overall, the mean AAS of the samples was 5. Twitter was the most popular social media platform for publicizing studies, accounting for 53.7%. In terms of study quality, only 19.1% of the studies were rated as having a high level of quality, with 41.8% of the studies deemed moderate quality. The type of social media platform, number of citations, impact factor, and study type were among the most influential characteristics of AAS in both models. In contrast, study quality was one of the least influential characteristics on the AAS. Conclusions: Social media platforms contributed the most to the AAS for orthodontic studies, whereas study quality had little impact on the AAS.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Sud P, Thelwall M. Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics 2014;98:1131-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2
  2. Huang W, Wang P, Wu Q. A correlation comparison between Altmetric Attention Scores and citations for six PLOS journals. PLoS One 2018;13:e0194962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194962
  3. Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 1968;159:56-63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
  4. Garcovich D, Adobes Martin M. Measuring the social impact of research in Paediatric Dentistry: an altmetric study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2020;30:66-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12575
  5. Asyyed Z, McGuire C, Samargandi O, Al-Youha S, Williams JG. The use of twitter by plastic surgery journals. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143:1092e-8e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005535
  6. Brigham TJ. An introduction to altmetrics. Med Ref Serv Q 2014;33:438-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.957093
  7. Elmore SA. The Altmetric Attention Score: what does it mean and why should I care? Toxicol Pathol 2018;46:252-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318758294
  8. Livas C, Delli K. Looking beyond traditional metrics in orthodontics: an altmetric study on the most discussed articles on the web. Eur J Orthod 2018;40:193-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx050
  9. Knight SR. Social media and online attention as an early measure of the impact of research in solid organ transplantation. Transplantation 2014;98:490-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000000307
  10. Melero R. Altmetrics - a complement to conventional metrics. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2015;25:152-60. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.016
  11. Champieux R. PlumX. J Med Libr Assoc 2015;103:63-4. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.019
  12. Hughes H, Hughes A, Murphy C. The use of twitter by the trauma and orthopaedic surgery journals: twitter activity, impact factor, and alternative metrics. Cureus 2017;9:e1931. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1931 Erratum in: Cureus 2018;10:c13. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.c13
  13. Amath A, Ambacher K, Leddy JJ, Wood TJ, Ramnanan CJ. Comparing alternative and traditional dissemination metrics in medical education. Med Educ 2017;51:935-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13359
  14. Delli K, Livas C, Spijkervet FKL, Vissink A. Measuring the social impact of dental research: an insight into the most influential articles on the Web. Oral Dis 2017;23:1155-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12714
  15. Zhang D, Earp BE. Correlation between social media posts and academic citations of orthopaedic research. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2020;4:e20.00151. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-20-00151
  16. Madhavji A, Araujo EA, Kim KB, Buschang PH. Attitudes, awareness, and barriers toward evidencebased practice in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:309-16.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.05.023
  17. Araujo AC, Vanin AA, Nascimento DP, Gonzalez GZ, Costa LOP. What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores? Syst Rev 2021;10:193. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01735-0
  18. Kunze KN, Richardson M, Bernstein DN, Premkumar A, Piuzzi NS, McLawhorn AS. Altmetrics Attention Scores for randomized controlled trials in total joint arthroplasty are reflective of high scientific quality: an altmetrics-based methodological quality and bias analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2020;4:e20.00187. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-20-00187
  19. Bondemark L, Holm AK, Hansen K, Axelsson S, Mohlin B, Brattstrom V, et al. Long-term stability of orthodontic treatment and patient satisfaction. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2007;77:181-91. https://doi.org/10.2319/011006-16R.1
  20. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn 2001;45:5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
  21. Friedman JH. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Statist 2001;29:1189-232. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451
  22. Kolahi J, Khazaei S, Iranmanesh P, Soltani P. Analysis of highly tweeted dental journals and articles: a science mapping approach. Br Dent J 2019;226:673-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0212-z
  23. Hassona Y, Qutachi T, Dardas L, Alrashdan MS, Sawair F. The online attention to oral cancer research: an altmetric analysis. Oral Dis 2019;25:1502-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.13111
  24. Thoma B, Murray H, Huang SYM, Milne WK, Martin LJ, Bond CM, et al. The impact of social media promotion with infographics and podcasts on research dissemination and readership. CJEM 2018;20:300-6. https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2017.394
  25. Garcovich D, Zhou Wu A, Sanchez Sucar AM, Adobes Martin M. The online attention to orthodontic research: an altmetric analysis of the orthodontic journals indexed in the journal citation reports from 2014 to 2018. Prog Orthod 2020;21:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-020-00332-6
  26. Konkiel SR. What can altmetrics tell us about interest in dental clinical trials? Dent Hypotheses 2017;8:31-3. https://doi.org/10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_12_17
  27. Rodrigues MA, Tedesco ACB, Nahas FX, Ferreira LM. Journal impact factor versus the evidence level of articles published in plastic surgery journals. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;133:1502-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000214