13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Bibliometric Analysis of Top-Cited Journal Articles in Obstetrics and Gynecology

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , , MD 2 , , DO 1 , , MD 1 , , MD, MS 2 , , PhD, MPH 3 , 4 , 5
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the top-cited obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) articles in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded and how do the articles from nonspecialty journals compare with those published in OBGYN specialty journals?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional bibliometric analysis, search terms from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s 2018 certifying examination topics list were used to identify top-cited articles from 1980 to 2018. Compared with top-cited articles published in OBGYN journals, those published in nonspecialty journals covered topics with broad interest to women’s health care professionals, were more frequently cited, and were more likely to be randomized trials.

          Meaning

          There are substantial differences between top-cited OBGYN articles published in nonspecialty vs OBGYN journals, which likely reflect the different goals of the journals.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional bibliometric analysis identifies top-cited articles on obstetrics and gynecology topics and compares top-cited articles published in obstetrics and gynecology specialty journals with those published in general medical journals.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Citation analysis is a bibliometric method that uses citation rates to evaluate research performance. This type of analysis can identify the articles that have shaped the modern history of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN).

          Objectives

          To identify and characterize top-cited OBGYN articles in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded and to compare top-cited OBGYN articles published in specialty OBGYN journals with those published in nonspecialty journals.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of top-cited articles that were indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 1980 to 2018. The Science Citation Index Expanded was queried using search terms from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s 2018 certifying examination topics list. The top 100 articles from all journals and the top 100 articles from OBGYN journals were evaluated for specific characteristics. Data were analyzed in March 2019.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The articles were characterized by citation number, publication year, topic, study design, and authorship. After excluding articles that featured on both lists, top-cited articles were compared.

          Results

          The query identified 3 767 874 articles, of which 278 846 (7.4%) were published in OBGYN journals. The top-cited article was published by Rossouw and colleagues in JAMA (2002). Top-cited articles published in nonspecialty journals were more frequently cited than those in OBGYN journals (median [interquartile range], 1738 [1490-2077] citations vs 666 [580-843] citations, respectively; P < .001) and were more likely to be randomized trials (25.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; difference, 22.8%; 95% CI, 13.5%-32.2%; P < .001). Whereas articles from nonspecialty journals focused on broad topics like osteoporosis, articles from OBGYN journal focused on topics like preeclampsia and endometriosis.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This study found substantial differences between top-cited OBGYN articles published in nonspecialty vs OBGYN journals. These differences may reflect the different goals of the journals, which work together to ensure optimal dissemination of impactful articles.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.

          This article presents a standard system of terminology recently approved by the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons for the description of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. An objective site-specific system for describing, quantitating, and staging pelvic support in women is included. It has been developed to enhance both clinical and academic communication regarding individual patients and populations of patients. Clinicians and researchers caring for women with pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction are encouraged to learn and use the system.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                20 December 2019
                December 2019
                20 December 2019
                : 2
                : 12
                : e1918007
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
                [2 ]Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
                [3 ]Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
                [4 ]Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey
                [5 ]Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, New Jersey
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 31, 2019.
                Published: December 20, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18007
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Brandt JS et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Justin S. Brandt, MD, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 125 Paterson St, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 ( jsb288@ 123456rwjms.rutgers.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Brandt and Ananth had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Brandt, Hadaya, Schuster, Sauer, Ananth.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Brandt, Hadaya, Schuster, Rosen, Ananth.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Brandt, Hadaya, Schuster, Sauer.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Brandt, Hadaya, Schuster, Rosen, Ananth.
                Statistical analysis: Brandt.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Brandt, Schuster.
                Supervision: Brandt, Rosen, Sauer, Ananth.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Article
                zoi190677
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18007
                6991228
                31860106
                b19afc92-978d-4d20-a75e-4e9f14d6c56a
                Copyright 2019 Brandt JS et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 8 July 2019
                : 31 October 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Medical Journals and Publishing

                Comments

                Comment on this article