The increasing role of electronic media in headache.

Most individuals with access to the internet use social media platforms. These platforms represent an excellent opportunity to disseminate knowledge about management and treatment to the benefit of patients. The International Headache Society, The European Headache Federation, and The American Headache Society have electronic media committees to promote and highlight the organizations' expertise and disseminate research findings. A growing mistrust in science has made dealing with infodemics (i.e., sudden access to excessive unvetted information) an increasing part of clinical management. An increasing role of these committees will be to address this challenge. As an example, recent studies have demonstrated that the most popular online content on migraine management is not evidence-based and is disseminated by for-profit organizations. As healthcare professionals and members of professional headache organizations, we are obliged to prioritize knowledge dissemination. A progressive social media strategy is associated not only with increased online visibility and outreach, but also with a higher scientific interest. To identify gaps and barriers, future research should assess the range of available information on headache disorders in electronic media, characterize direct and indirect consequences on clinical management, and recognize best practice and strategies to improve our communication on internet-based communication platforms. In turn, these efforts will reduce the burden of headache disorders by facilitating improved education of both patients and providers.

Altmetrics can capture research evidence: an analysis across types of studies in COVID-19 literature

COVID-19 has greatly impacted science. It has become a global research front that constitutes a unique phenomenon of interest for the scientometric community. Accordingly, there has been a proliferation of descriptive studies on COVID-19 papers using altmetrics. Social media metrics serve to elucidate how research is shared and discussed, and one of the key points is to determine which factors are well-conditioned altmetric values. The main objective of this study is to analyze whether the altmetric mentions of COVID-19 medical studies are associated with the type of study and its level of evidence. Data were collected from the PubMed and Altmetric.com databases. A total of 16,672 publications by study types (e.g., case reports, clinical trials, or meta-analyses) that were published in the year 2021 and that had at least one altmetric mention were retrieved. The altmetric indicators considered were Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), news mentions, Twitter mentions, and Mendeley readers. Once the dataset of COVID-19 had been created, the first step was to carry out a descriptive study. Then, a normality hypothesis was evaluated by means of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and since this was significant in all cases, the overall comparison of groups was performed using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test. When this test rejected the null hypothesis, pairwise comparisons were performed with the Mann– Whitney U test, and the intensity of the possible association was measured using Cramer's V coefficient. The results suggest that the data do not fit a normal distribution. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed coincidences in five groups of study types: The altmetric indicator with most coincidences was news mentions, and the study types with the most coincidences were the systematic reviews together with the meta-analyses, which coincided with four altmetric indicators. Likewise, between the study types and the altmetric indicators, a weak but significant association was observed through the chi-square and Cramer's V. It can thus be concluded that the positive association between altmetrics and study types in medicine could reflect the level of the "pyramid” of scientific evidence. © 2023, El Profesional de la Informacion. All rights reserved.

Which papers cited which tweets? An exploratory analysis based on Scopus data

Many altmetric studies have analyzed which papers were mentioned how often on Twitter (one of the most important altmetrics sources). In order to study the potential relevance of tweets from another perspective, we investigate which tweets were cited in papers. If many tweets were cited in publications, this might demonstrate that tweets have substantial and useful content. Overall, a rather low number of citations to tweets (n=13,149) by less than 7,000 papers was found. Most tweets do not seem to be cited because of any cognitive influence they might have had on studies;they rather were study objects. Thus, this study does not support a high relevance of tweets (for research). Most of the papers that cited tweets are from the subject areas Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Medicine. Most of the papers cited only one tweet. Up to 65 tweets cited in a single paper were found. An author keyword analysis revealed that the single largest topic seems to be the COVID-19/corona pandemic. © 2023 Elsevier Ltd

Association of Non-traditional Indicators of Readers' Engagement With Traditional Dissemination Metrics of COVID-19-Related Research.

INTRODUCTION:  Researchers are increasingly interested in appraising the impact of their research work, which eventually drives public perception. The overall impact of a study can only be gauged if we consider both traditional and non-traditional dissemination patterns. Hence, we preferred to study the association between the non-traditional reader engagement metrics and traditional dissemination metrics in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related research published in five high-impact peer-reviewed medical journals. METHOD:  This observational study was conducted using data sourced from Altmetric, including the Altmetric attention score (AAS), an aggregate score of an article's dissemination. New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet Infectious Diseases, Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID), Chest Journal (CHEST), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) were included in the study based on the prevalence of COVID-19-related original research published in each of them. The number of citations was framed as the reference for traditional metrics. To avoid artificial variance, data were collected on the same day, November 13, 2022. Correlational analyses were performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient using Minitab 17 (Minitab Inc., State College, PA). The relationship between the variables was considered very weak if r<0.3, weak if r: 0.3 to 0.5, moderate if r: 0.5 to 0.7, and strong for r>0.7. RESULTS:  We found a very weak correlation between citations and AAS for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Lancet Infectious Diseases, and CHEST, whereas the correlation was moderate for NEJM and JAMA. The correlation between citations and Twitter mentions was very weak for Clinical Infectious Disease, Lancet Infectious Disease, and CHEST, but it improved for NEJM and JAMA. There was a very weak correlation between citations and news mentions for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Lancet Infectious Diseases, and CHEST. CONCLUSION:  Our study highlights that the traditional indicator, i.e., citation has a very weak to moderate correlation with the AAS and it doesn't capture the entire influence of a research publication. Also, the current method of determining a journal's impact factor doesn't take this disparity into consideration. Hence, there needs to have a more inclusive strategy to define the impact of scientific research on the general population in real-time.

Anesthesiology Articles Published in 2020: A Review and Characterization of COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID-19 Publications in Top Anesthesiology Journals.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on the practice of medicine worldwide, particularly in anesthesiology. As the clinical realm has rapidly adjusted to the realities of the pandemic, anesthesiology literature has also changed significantly to reflect this. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on anesthesiology literature. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the COVID-19-related literature in the anesthesiology community would gain more interest than non-COVID-19-related articles. A total of 15 anesthesiology-related journals with the highest impact factor in 2019, according to the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), were selected for data collection. An advanced PubMed search identified 5,722 COVID-19-related articles published by these journals in 2020. Next, articles with titles including "corona," "COVID," "COVID-19," "pandemic," "SARS," or "SARS-CoV-2" were selected for inclusion in the study, which resulted in 676 (12%) articles. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the Altmetric score, which is a weighted calculation of the attention an article receives online, for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 articles. Articles were then further characterized across multiple different variables, including country of origin, month published, type of article, and subspecialty of anesthesiology it pertained to. Of the 15 journals investigated, 676 (12%) articles of the 5,722 total articles published were found to be COVID-19-related material. The majority of the articles were found to be published in April (18%), May (19.5%), and June (14%). The majority of these articles were related either to general anesthesia (operating room anesthesiology that is not tied to a particular subspecialty fellowship track) (48%) or critical care (39%). By article type, most were determined to be editorial (71%) in nature, followed by original research articles (21%), of which most were cross-sectional (55%) studies. When compared with non-COVID-19-related articles, COVID-19-related articles had a significantly greater Altmetric score (29.518 versus 8.6333, p < 0.001). Of the COVID-19-related articles, original articles had the greatest Altmetric score, when compared to editorials and guidelines (54.794 versus 20.777 versus 40.643, p < 0.002). The response of the academic anesthesiology community to the COVID-19 pandemic was strong and timely, with a particularly strong focus on critical care anesthesia. The impact of the pandemic was strongly felt by the anesthesiology community, and their timely response served to guide our country and world through an incredibly challenging time. The pandemic highlighted the value of anesthesiologists worldwide, not only in the operating room setting but particularly as critical care physicians.

Publication and Impact of Preprints Included in the First 100 Editions of the CDC COVID-19 Science Update: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preprints are publicly available manuscripts posted to various servers that have not been peer reviewed. Although preprints have existed since 1961, they have gained increased popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the need for immediate, relevant information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the publication rate and impact of preprints included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Science Update and assess the performance of the COVID-19 Science Update team in selecting impactful preprints. METHODS: All preprints in the first 100 editions (April 1, 2020, to July 30, 2021) of the Science Update were included in the study. Preprints that were not published were categorized as "unpublished preprints." Preprints that were subsequently published exist in 2 versions (in a peer-reviewed journal and on the original preprint server), which were analyzed separately and referred to as "peer-reviewed preprint" and "original preprint," respectively. Time to publish was the time interval between the date on which a preprint was first posted and the date on which it was first available as a peer-reviewed article. Impact was quantified by Altmetric Attention Score and citation count for all available manuscripts on August 6, 2021. Preprints were analyzed by publication status, publication rate, preprint server, and time to publication. RESULTS: Of the 275 preprints included in the CDC COVID-19 Science Update during the study period, most came from three servers: medRxiv (n=201, 73.1%), bioRxiv (n=41, 14.9%), and SSRN (n=25, 9.1%), with 8 (2.9%) coming from other sources. Additionally, 152 (55.3%) were eventually published. The median time to publish was 2.3 (IQR 1.4-3.7). When preprints posted in the last 2.3 months were excluded (to account for the time to publish), the publication rate was 67.8%. Moreover, 76 journals published at least one preprint from the CDC COVID-19 Science Update, and 18 journals published at least three. The median Altmetric Attention Score for unpublished preprints (n=123, 44.7%) was 146 (IQR 22-552) with a median citation count of 2 (IQR 0-8); for original preprints (n=152, 55.2%), these values were 212 (IQR 22-1164) and 14 (IQR 2-40), respectively; for peer-review preprints, these values were 265 (IQR 29-1896) and 19 (IQR 3-101), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies of COVID-19 preprints found publication rates between 5.4% and 21.1%. Preprints included in the CDC COVID-19 Science Update were published at a higher rate than overall COVID-19 preprints, and those that were ultimately published were published within months and received higher attention scores than unpublished preprints. These findings indicate that the Science Update process for selecting preprints had a high fidelity in terms of their likelihood to be published and their impact. The incorporation of high-quality preprints into the CDC COVID-19 Science Update improves this activity's capacity to inform meaningful public health decision-making.

Top 50 covid and oral health articles: A 2021 altmetric analysis.

Objectives: There is a world of information at our disposal, and it is increasingly difficult to transform this dull amount of data into knowledge. How to be constantly actualized? This study aims to create an altmetric list of the top 50 articles related to COVID-19 and oral health. Methods: Research of terms COVID-19 and oral health was done using Dimensions app. Results were ranked in altmetric citations and analyzed through Microsoft Excel. Some tables and graphics were created. Graphical illustration of keywords was created using VOSviewer. Results: Some interesting facts can be seen, like growing interest in dental aerosols, perspectives, and virucidal activity of some mouthwashes. Conclusions: Altmetric analysis is a helpful manner to scientific updates, supplementing bibliometric analysis. A terrific manner to see trends. The scientific community goes to great lengths to solve problems with dental aerosols, particularly to reduce contamination. Some adjustments to dental office and the use of barriers are recommended.

High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate for coronavirus disease 2019 treatments without benefits in subsequent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) how many of their most-cited clinical studies had declared favorable results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scopus searches (December 23, 2021) identified articles on lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, colchicine, or interferon (index interventions) that represented clinical trials and had >150 citations. Their conclusions were correlated with study design features. The 10 most recent citations for the most-cited article on each index intervention were examined on whether they were critical to the highly cited study. Altmetric scores were also obtained. RESULTS: Forty eligible articles of clinical studies had received >150 citations. Twenty of forty (50%) had favorable conclusions and four were equivocal. Highly cited articles with favorable conclusions were rarely RCTs (3/20), although those without favorable conclusions were mostly RCTs (15/20, P = 0.0003). Only one RCT with favorable conclusions had >160 patients. Citation counts correlated strongly with Altmetric scores, especially news items. Only nine (15%) of 60 recent citations to the most highly cited studies with favorable or equivocal conclusions were critical. CONCLUSION: Many clinical studies with favorable conclusions for largely ineffective coronavirus disease 2019 treatments are uncritically heavily cited and disseminated. Early observational studies and small randomized trials may cause spurious claims of effectiveness that get perpetuated.

Top COVID-19 100 vaccine papers: An Altmetric study

The high number of COVID-19 studies has attracted scholars to produce many studies on the topic. However, while we know the impact of these studies on academia by analyzing their citation score in different indexing outlets, little is known about their impact on social networks. The current study aims to measure the impact of the top 100 vaccination papers on social networks. An Altmetrics analysis is conducted to measure the Altmetrics attention scores of the paper. We retrieved the data through the Web of Science and Scopus. The researchers selected Altmetric.com as a tool to obtain social media and mainstream internet outlet counts. The findings of the study revealed that there is a significant correlation between the citations and Altmetric indicators. Our findings indicate that Twitter and Mendeley represent the most contributes social networks in the final AAS in almost all journals included in the study. The study’s findings have confirmed that COVID-19 vaccination papers have gained many citations and attention on social networks. The study’s main limitation is that it only measured the Altmetrics score for the top 100 papers. Hence, while the current paper gave us insight into the performance of vaccination papers on the social web, there is a need to conduct further studies covering a larger sample. © 2021 IEEE.

Top 100 articles on vitamin D: Bibliometric versus altmetric analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the main features of the top 100 (T100) most cited articles in academia and 100 most discussed articles on social media about vitamin D from 1975 to 2021 and compare bibliometric and altmetric analysis. METHODS: 'Vitamin D' was searched from the Web of Science database and Altmetric.com website, and T100 citation and altmetric lists were created, respectively. Articles in both lists were analysed in terms of study type, topic, first author, publication year, citation number and altmetric attention score (AAS). Impact factor (IF) and quartile of journal, in which the articles were published was also examined. RESULTS: The article "Vitamin D Deficiency" by Holick MF, published in the New England Journal of Medicine was the most cited article (n=8492), original scientific paper was the most frequent study type in both lists. No correlation was found between AAS and citation number in both lists (r=0.176, p=0.081; r=0.157, p=0.119, respectively). The journals on the T100 citation list had a statistically significantly higher IF than the journals in the T100 altmetric list (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Altmetric analysis of vitamin D is currently insufficient to replace traditional bibliometric analysis but can provide valuable information about the society's interest. As social media gains more importance every day in our lives, high altmetric score could affect future interests and direct studies (Tab. 6, Fig. 3, Ref. 21).

Social Media Metrics of Indian Covid-19 Research: An Altmetric Analysis

The current pandemic situation due to Covid-19 has put every researcher on their toes to discover new methods (whether medicine or tools and techniques) to overcome the menace from the human population. The research focus has given the generation of enormous amount of both published literature and raw research data. The research impact analysis with the help of traditional method is a time-consuming process, resulted in choosing alternative methods of impact measurement - now popularly known as Altmetric. The article analyses social media metrics of Indian publications on Covid-19 through altmetric approaches. The data for the study has been taken from Scopus and Altmetric.com and analysis was carried out for different social media activities to calculate the Altmetric attention score for Indian published literatures. An analysis was also carried out to assess whether the alternative metrics have any correlation with the citation impact. It is found that correlation between some of the social media activities and citations is highly significant.

COVID-19 from a rheumatology perspective: bibliometric and altmetric analysis.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak turned out the greatest pandemic for decades. It challenged enormously the global health system, forcing it to adjust to the new realities. We aimed to analyze articles covering COVID-19 papers in the rheumatological field and outline emerging topics raising within this frame. We applied the bibliometric database Scopus for our literature search and conducted it on the 5th of June using the following keywords: "rheumatic" OR "rheumatology" OR "rheumatoid arthritis" OR "systemic lupus erythematosus" OR "myositis" OR "systemic sclerosis" OR "vasculitis" OR "arthritis" OR "ankylosing spondylitis" AND "COVID-19". We analyzed all selected articles according to various aspects: type of document, authorship, journal, citations score, rheumatology field, country of origin, language, and keywords. With the help of the software tool VOSviewer version 1.6.15, we have built the visualizing network of authors and keywords co-occurrence. The measurement of the social impact of articles was made using Altmetric data. This study included 1430 retrieved articles with open access mostly. The top five journals in this field were Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 65), Rheumatology International (n = 51), Clinical Rheumatology (n = 50), Lancet Rheumatology (n = 50), and Frontiers In Immunology (n = 33). Most studies originate from countries with a high incidence of COVID-19 among the general population (the USA-387; Italy-268; UK-184; France-114; Germany-110; India-98 and Spain-96, China-94, Canada-73 Turkey-66). Original Articles (42.1%) were the most common articles' type, following by Letters (24.4%), Reviews (21.7%), Notes (6%), Editorials (4.8%), Erratum (1%). According to the citations scores, articles dedicated to the clinical course of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases were of the highest importance for the scientific rheumatologic community. Rheumatoid arthritis (n = 527), systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 393), vasculitis (n = 267), myositis (n = 71), systemic sclerosis (n = 68), and psoriatic arthritis (n = 68) were the most widely discussed rheumatic diseases in the view of COVID-19. The analysis of Altmetric and citations scores revealed a moderate correlation between them. This article provides a comprehensive bibliometric and altmetric analysis of COVID-19 related articles in the rheumatology field and summarizes data about features of rheumatology service in the time of the pandemic.

Dedicated COVID-19 Resource Center in Radiology Journals: Its Citation Metrics and Altmetrics Impact.

BACKGROUND: Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several journals have established a dedicated resource center for all the articles published on COVID-19. Our study compared the altmetric impact captured by articles published in journals having a COVID-19 resource center. METHODS: We used the Web of Science database to assess radiology journals publishing the most common articles on COVID-19. We used the dimensions database to assess citations received and altmetric attention score for each article. For each article, we extracted several citations received and altmetric attention scores. To account for the variation in strength and exposure between included journals, we adopted a normalization strategy and regression analysis in our statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 494 articles were included in the current assessment, including 334 (67.6%) articles published in journals with the dedicated COVID-19 resource center, including European radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Radiology, and Journal of the American college of radiology, while European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Academic Radiology did not have COVID-19 resource center. Journals with COVID-19 resource center had a mean normalized altmetric attention score of 0.38 higher (95% CI 0.25 to 0.50; p< 0.001) and a mean normalized citation count of 6.73 higher (95% CI 3.99 to 9.48; p< 0.001) than those without COVID-19 resource center. CONCLUSION: Radiology journals that provided COVID-19 articles in a dedicated resource center within its homepage had greater attention and higher citation for their COVID-19 articles than journals that did not have such a dedicated resource center.

Alternative publication metrics in the time of COVID-19.

Alternative metrics are unique bibliometrics comprising social, news, and other sources of media outside of traditional academic citations. Some have suggested that these metrics can complement traditional metrics of research impact, including public engagement with research. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to study alternative metrics and the dissemination of scientific research given the heightened academic and public interest. This study analyzed Altmetric Attention Scores for the top 25 publications on COVID-19 and the top 25 non-COVID-19 publications in 2020. There were significantly higher levels of social attention scores across multiple metrics for COVID-19 articles than for non-COVID-19 articles for that year. There was a slightly higher goodness of fit between Altmetric Attention Scores and academic citations for COVID-19 publications than for non-COVID-19 publications, although trendline differences were not significant. These results suggest that researchers should be aware that their studies can become highly visible on publicly available social and news media platforms, especially during events of high interest (such as a global pandemic).

Contemporary Cardiovascular Imaging Advancements and Social Media.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Social media (SoMe) as a means of knowledge dissemination has grown significantly in cardiovascular imaging in recent years. This media platform allows for a free exchange of ideas, the development of new communities, and the ability to disseminate advancements rapidly. While the social media platforms offer limitless potential, their public domain necessitates several important suggestions around best practices. RECENT FINDINGS: In cardiovascular imaging, specific hashtags have emerged to encompass the major modalities to include #EchoFirst, #YesCCT, #WhyCMR, and #CVNuc. Cardiovascular imaging journals have established major presences in the social media space as an avenue to present novel, high-quality, peer-reviewed content to new audiences. SUMMARY: This review paper aims to introduce basic concepts in social media and cardiovascular imaging while highlighting recent topics of high importance, influence, and attention in cardiovascular imaging to include the ISCHEMIA trial, COVID-19, structural imaging, and multimodality advances from throughout 2020.

Assessing the Dissemination of COVID-19 Articles Across Social Media With Altmetric and PlumX Metrics: Correlational Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of social media assists in the distribution of COVID-19 information to the general public and health professionals. Alternative-level metrics (ie, altmetrics) and PlumX metrics are new bibliometrics that can assess how many times a scientific article has been shared and how much a scientific article has spread within social media platforms. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to characterize and compare the traditional bibliometrics (ie, citation count and impact factors) and new bibliometrics (ie, Altmetric Attention Score [AAS] and PlumX score) of the top 100 COVID-19 articles with the highest AASs. METHODS: The top 100 articles with highest AASs were identified with Altmetric Explorer in May 2020. The AASs, journal names, and the number of mentions in various social media databases of each article were collected. Citation counts and PlumX Field-Weighted Citation Impact scores were collected from the Scopus database. Additionally, AASs, PlumX scores, and citation counts were log-transformed and adjusted by +1 for linear regression, and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to determine correlations. RESULTS: The median AAS, PlumX score, and citation count were 4922.50, 37.92, and 24.00, respectively. The New England Journal of Medicine published the most articles (18/100, 18%). The highest number of mentions (985,429/1,022,975, 96.3%) were found on Twitter, making it the most frequently used social media platform. A positive correlation was observed between AAS and citation count (r2=0.0973; P=.002), and between PlumX score and citation count (r2=0.8911; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that citation count weakly correlated with AASs and strongly correlated with PlumX scores, with regard to COVID-19 articles at this point in time. Altmetric and PlumX metrics should be used to complement traditional citation counts when assessing the dissemination and impact of a COVID-19 article.

Comparison of attention for malnutrition research on social media versus academia: Altmetric score analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to provide bibliometric and Altmetric overviews and visualization and to evaluate the correlation between traditional bibliometric and Altmetric analyses in the field of malnutrition. METHODS: Articles published in the past decade were identified by searching for the term "malnutrition" on the Web of Science indexing database and research platform. The top 50 cited articles were analyzed in terms of title, study type, topic of study, first author, publication year, citation number, keywords, organizations, average citations per year, journal H index, impact factor, and Altmetric attention score. Also, the top 50 Altmetric articles published in the past decade about malnutrition were provided on the website Altmetric.com. RESULTS: Among the top 50 cited articles, the most common study type, topic of study, publication year, and keyword were, respectively, original scientific paper (n = 26), definition-diagnosis of malnutrition (n = 17), 2010 (n = 13), and malnutrition (n = 18). The article titled "Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries" in Lancet had the highest citation number, and the article "Impacts of COVID-19 on childhood malnutrition and nutrition-related mortality" in Lancet had the highest Altmetric score. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating academic publications with an Altmeric analysis in addition to a traditional bibliometric analysis is beneficial because Altmetric attention scores can give information about what the population wants to know about malnutrition and allows us to develop appropriate policies.