Background: The Relative Citation Ratio is a novel bibliometric tool that quantifies the impact of research articles. The objectives of this study were to identify the 100 obstetrics and gynecology articles with the highest relative citation ratios, evaluate how characteristics of these articles changed over time, and compare characteristics of these articles with top-cited obstetrics and gynecology articles.
Objective: We undertook a cross-sectional bibliometric study to examine the 100 obstetrics and gynecology articles with the highest relative citation ratios and the top 100 cited articles in the National Institutes of Health Open Citations Collection from 1980 to 2019.
Study design: We identified every obstetrics and gynecology article published from 1980 to 2019 that was indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citations Collection. The top 100 articles with the highest relative citation ratios and the top 100 cited articles were selected for further review. Each article was evaluated using metrics of influence, translation, and other characteristics. We compared the top 100 articles with the highest relative citation ratios published from 1980 to 1999 versus 2000 to 2019 and characteristics of the top 100 articles with the highest relative citation ratios versus the top 100 top-cited articles (after excluding those on both lists). Means, standard deviations, and mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Associations were expressed as relative risks (95% confidence interval).
Results: A total of 323,673 obstetrics and gynecology articles were published between 1980 and 2019. Among the top 100 articles with the highest relative citation ratios, most were observational studies (36%), reviews (26%), and consensus statements (21%). There were only 5 randomized clinical trials. Compared with the articles with the highest relative citation ratios published from 1980 to 1999, articles published from 2000 to 2019 were more likely about benign gynecology (relative risks, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-2.8) and less likely about gynecology-oncology (relative risks, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.9) and urogynecology (relative risks, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-3.3). The articles after 2000 were more likely about systematic reviews (relative risks, 7.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-58.3) and consensus statements (relative risks, 5.1; 95% confidence intervals, 1.6-16.3) and were published as open access articles (relative risks, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.0). There were 60 articles in common between the top 100 articles with the highest relative citation ratios and the top 100 cited articles. Compared with articles that were top cited (after excluding articles on both lists), articles with the highest relative citation ratios received fewer mean citations (266.9 [135.3] vs 514.3 [54.6]; mean differences, 247.4; 95% confidence interval, 201.5-293.3) but had higher numbers of citations per year (37.5 [4.1] vs 31.6 [8.1]; mean difference, -5.9; 95% confidence interval, -14.6 to -2.7). Compared with the articles with the highest relative citation ratios, top-cited articles were more likely to address gynecology topics (relative risk, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.5), less likely to be randomized clinical trials (relative risk, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-3.8), and less likely to be published as open access articles (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.86).
Conclusion: The Relative Citation Ratio is a novel bibliometric tool that does not rely on absolute citation rates and provides unique insight into the dissemination of knowledge in obstetrics and gynecology. Nearly half of the influential obstetrics and gynecology articles identified with this metric would not have been recognized as citation classics by conventional bibliometric analysis.
Keywords: Relative Citation Ratio; bibliometrics; citation analysis; citation classics; obstetrics and gynecology; top cited.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.