Meta-Analysis of Correlations between Altmetric Attention Score and Citations in Health Sciences.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, several controversial reports of the correlation between altmetric score and citations have been published (range: -0.2 to 0.8). We conducted a meta-analysis to provide an in-depth statistical analysis of the correlation between altmetric score and number of citations in the field of health sciences. METHODS: Three online databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) were systematically searched, without language restrictions, from the earliest publication date available through February 29, 2020, using the keywords "altmetric," "citation," and "correlation." Grey literature was also searched via WorldCat, Open Grey, and Google Scholar (first 100 hits only). All studies in the field of health sciences that reported on this correlation were included. Effect sizes were calculated using Fisher's z transformation of correlations. Subgroup analyses based on citation source and sampling methods were performed. RESULTS: From 27 included articles, 8 articles comprise several independent studies. The total sample size was 9,943 articles comprised of 35 studies. The overall pooled effect size was 0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.26). Bivariate partial prediction of interaction between effect size, citation source, and sampling method showed a greater effect size with Web of Science compared with Scopus and Dimensions. Egger's regression showed a marginally nonsignificant publication bias (p = 0.055), and trim-and-fill analysis estimated one missing study in this meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: In health sciences, currently altmetric score has a positive but weak correlation with number of citations (pooled correlation = 0.19, 95% C.I 0.12 to 0.25). We emphasize on future examinations to assess changes of correlation pattern between altmetric score and citations over time.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in suspected patients: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: From the begging months of 2020 a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, also called 2019-nCoV) caused a devastating global outbreak. At present, the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is made through a nasopharyngeal swab based on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique. However, some recent studies suggested the possible role of oral fluids and saliva in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The purpose of this scoping review is evaluating the available evidence regarding the efficacy of saliva as a diagnostic specimen in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review of six databases (PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], Science Direct, Web of Science and Google scholar) was carried out without any restrictions on date of publication to identify the reliability of saliva as a diagnostic specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in suspected patients. RESULTS: Nine eligible articles were included in this review based on our described method. All the included studies are based on clinical surveys among patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of studies included in this review, reported that there is no statistically significant difference between nasopharyngeal or sputum specimens and saliva samples regarding viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations of this study, the findings of this review suggest that the use of self-collected saliva as a non-invasive specimen has proper accuracy and reliability regarding detection of SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR technique.