Dataset Information

Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature.

ABSTRACT: Our objective was to evaluate the association between traditional metrics such as Impact Factor and Eigenfactor with respect to alternative metrics. The Altmetric Attention Score for the top nine pulmonary and critical care journals was compared with Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and citations over two time periods (2007-2011 and 2012-2016). There was a significant increase in the Altmetric Attention Score (52 from 2007 to 2011 vs 1,061 from 2012 to 2016; p < 0.001) but no significant differences in Total Citations, Impact Factor, or Eigenfactor. There was a strong positive correlation between citations and Altmetric Attention Score, negative correlations between Eigenfactor and Altmetric Attention Score for most journals, and no clear association between Impact Factor and Altmetric Attention Score. Over time, the digital reach of traditional publications has increased significantly, while no significant increase was noted for the traditional metrics. These findings likely reflect discussions of articles online that are not captured by traditional metrics and hence their impact on the community at large.

SUBMITTER: Kaul V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7063950 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature.

Kaul Viren V Bhan Rohit R Stewart Nancy H NH Behrens Deanna M DM Gutman Amy A Dangayach Neha N Geisler Benjamin P BP Carroll Christopher L CL

Critical care explorations 20190801 8

Our objective was to evaluate the association between traditional metrics such as Impact Factor and Eigenfactor with respect to alternative metrics. The Altmetric Attention Score for the top nine pulmonary and critical care journals was compared with Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and citations over two time periods (2007-2011 and 2012-2016). There was a significant increase in the Altmetric Attention Score (52 from 2007 to 2011 vs 1,061 from 2012 to 2016; <i>p</i> < 0.001) but no significant diffe ...[more]

PMID: 32166269

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis survey assessed satisfaction with the practice environment among physicians who have completed fellowship training in critical care medicine (CCM) as recognized by the American Board of Anesthesiology (and are members of the American Society of Anesthesiology) and evaluated the perceived effectiveness of training programs in preparing fellows for critical care practice.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey composed of 39 multiple choice and open-ended questions was administered between August and December 2018 to all members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) who self-identified as being CCM trained. The survey instrument was developed and revised in an iterative fashion by ASA committee on CCM and the Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA). Survey results were analyzed using a mixed-method approach.ResultsThree hundred fifty-three of the 1400 anesthesiologists who self-identified to the ASA as having CCM training (25.2%) completed the survey. Most were men (72.3%), board certified in CCM (98.7%), and had practiced a median of 5 years. Half of the respondents rated their training as "excellent." A total of 70.6% described currently working in academic centers with 53.6% providing care in open surgical intensive care units (ICUs). Most anesthesiologist intensivists (75%) spend at least 25% of their clinical time providing ICU care (versus clinical anesthesia). A total of 89% of the respondents were involved in educational activities, 60% reported being in administrative leadership roles, and 37% engaged in scholarly activity. Areas of dissatisfaction included fatigue, lack of collegiality or respect, lack of research training, decreased job satisfaction, and burnout. Analysis suggested moderate levels of job satisfaction (49%), work-life balance (52%), and high levels of burnout (74%). A significant contributor to burnout was with a perception of lack of respect (P = .005) in the work environment. Burnout was not significantly associated with gender or duration of practice. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses also identified these 3 variables as major themes.ConclusionsThis survey of CCM-trained anesthesiologists described a high rate of board certification, practice in academic settings, and participation in resident education. Areas of dissatisfaction with an anesthesia/critical care practice included burnout, work/life balance, and lack of respect. These results may increase recruitment of anesthesiologists into critical care and inform strategies to improve satisfaction with anesthesia critical care practice, fellowship training.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of simulation-based team training has increased over the past decades. Simulation-based team training within emergency medicine and critical care contexts is best known for its use by trauma teams and teams involved in cardiac arrest. In the domain of emergency medicine, simulation-based team training is also used for other typical time-critical clinical presentations. We aimed to review the existing literature and current state of evidence pertaining to non-technical skills obtained via simulation-based team training in emergency medicine and critical care contexts, excluding trauma and cardiac arrest contexts.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Before the initiation of the study, the protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database. We conducted a systematic literature search of 10 years of publications, up to December 17, 2019, in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two authors independently reviewed all the studies and extracted data.ResultsOf the 456 studies screened, 29 trials were subjected to full-text review, and 13 studies were included in the final review. None of the studies was randomized controlled trials, and no studies compared simulation training to different modalities of training. Studies were heterogeneous; they applied simulation-training concepts of different durations and intensities and used different outcome measures for non-technical skills. Two studies reached Kirkpatrick level 3. Out of the remaining 11 studies, nine reached Kirkpatrick level 2, and two reached Kirkpatrick level 1.ConclusionsThe literature on simulation-based team training in emergency medicine is heterogeneous and sparse, but somewhat supports the hypothesis that simulation-based team training is beneficial to teams' knowledge and attitudes toward non-technical skills (Kirkpatrick level 2). Randomized trials are called for to clarify the effect of simulation compared to other modalities of team training. Future research should focus on the transfer of skills and investigate improvements in patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick level 4).

Project description:BackgroundTraditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an integral part of mainstream medicine in China, with theories and practices that are completely different from modern medicine. TCM should not be ignored or confused with modern medicine in the analysis of the Chinese health care system, including the analysis of mobile health (mHealth) apps. To date, differences between TCM apps and modern medicine apps have not be systematically investigated.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically compare the quality of apps for TCM and modern medicine in China.MethodsIn December 2020, we searched iOS (iTunes) and Android (Tencent, Oppo, and Huawei app stores) platforms for all mHealth apps and then categorized them as TCM or modern medicine apps if they were included in the final analysis. The included apps were downloaded on smartphones and assessed by 2 reviewers on the following 4 aspects: (1) data in the app stores, including user ratings, download counts, cost, target users, and year of last update; (2) functionality; (3) quality of the app content as determined by the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS); and (4) analysis of the app privacy and security.ResultsIn total, 658 apps were analyzed, including 261 TCM medicine apps and 397 modern medicine apps. The average download count of modern medicine apps (approximately 5 million) was more than 10 times that of TCM apps (approximately 400,000). Regarding functionalities, 64.7% (257/397) of modern medicine apps provided telemedicine (74/261, 28.4% in TCM apps), 62.7% (249/397) provided registration (70/261, 26.8% in TCM apps), and 45.6% (181/397) provided communication (38/261, 14.6% in TCM apps). A larger proportion of TCM apps provided prescription and medication management (144/261, 55.2% in TCM apps versus 168/397, 42.3% in modern medicine apps). The majority of modern medicine apps (329/397, 82.9%) combined ≥3 functionalities compared with one-third of TCM apps (93/261, 34.6%). We then selected 81 top apps for quality and safety assessment (41 TCM apps and 40 modern medicine apps). Of these, the mean overall MARS score of TCM apps (2.7, SD 0.5) was significantly lower than modern medicine apps (3.6, SD 0.4). Almost all modern medicine apps (38/40, 95%) addressed privacy and security by providing a privacy policy and describing how to protect personal data, but less than half of the TCM apps (18/41, 44%) described this information (P<.001).ConclusionsThe different functionalities reflect the distinct innate characteristics of these two medical systems. Although great progress has been made and the Chinese mHealth market size is large, there still exist many opportunities for future development, especially for TCM.

Dataset Information

Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature.

Publications

Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets