OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the trends in dentistry article reviews as well as to compare citation patterns between systematic and narrative reviews. METHODS: A search strategy was developed, in Scopus database, in order to identify all narrative and systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2015. Original research studies, letters to the editor, editorials, book chapters, and case reports were excluded. From the list of studies available, 30 reviews per year were randomly chosen. The review type, year of publication, number of authors, country of the first author, open access, language, main topic of interest, journal's H index, number of references, and number of citations were extracted by 2 researchers. The number of citations was extracted from the Scopus database. Multivariable regression analysis was used in order to detect the association between citation rate and the independent variables. RESULTS: Overall, 118 and 362 systematic and narrative reviews were included in this study. Throughout the years, the number of systematic reviews has increased from 5.8% to 53.3%. However, the mean number of citations has significantly decreased, and this is affected by the review's year of publication. A trend for lower citation in systematic reviews (Relative risk [RR]: 0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.84) has been demonstrated; however, the number of citations of narrative reviews has been increasing over the years (RR: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.21). CONCLUSION: From 2000 to 2015, the number of systematic reviews increased substantially. On the other hand, a trend for lower citations of these studies has been observed that is affected over time.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the trends in dentistry article reviews as well as to compare citation patterns between systematic and narrative reviews. METHODS: A search strategy was developed, in Scopus database, in order to identify all narrative and systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2015. Original research studies, letters to the editor, editorials, book chapters, and case reports were excluded. From the list of studies available, 30 reviews per year were randomly chosen. The review type, year of publication, number of authors, country of the first author, open access, language, main topic of interest, journal's H index, number of references, and number of citations were extracted by 2 researchers. The number of citations was extracted from the Scopus database. Multivariable regression analysis was used in order to detect the association between citation rate and the independent variables. RESULTS: Overall, 118 and 362 systematic and narrative reviews were included in this study. Throughout the years, the number of systematic reviews has increased from 5.8% to 53.3%. However, the mean number of citations has significantly decreased, and this is affected by the review's year of publication. A trend for lower citation in systematic reviews (Relative risk [RR]: 0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.84) has been demonstrated; however, the number of citations of narrative reviews has been increasing over the years (RR: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.21). CONCLUSION: From 2000 to 2015, the number of systematic reviews increased substantially. On the other hand, a trend for lower citations of these studies has been observed that is affected over time.
Authors: María Melo; José Luis Sanz; Leopoldo Forner; Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Lozano; Julia Guerrero-Gironés Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.614