Bibliometric data in clinical cardiology revisited. The case of 37 Dutch professors

In this paper, we assess the bibliometric parameters of 37 Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. Those are the Hirsch index (h-index) based on all papers, the h-index based on first authored papers, the number of papers, the number of citations and the citations per paper. A top 10 for each of the five parameters was compiled. In theory, the same 10 professors might appear in each of these top 10s. Alternatively, each of the 37 professors under assessment could appear one or more times. In practice, we found 22 out of these 37 professors in the 5 top 10s. Thus, there is no golden parameter. In addition, there is too much inhomogeneity in citation characteristics even within a relatively homogeneous group of clinical cardiologists. Therefore, citation analysis should be applied with great care in science policy. This is even more important when different fields of medicine are compared in university medical centres. It may be possible to develop better parameters in the future, but the present ones are simply not good enough. Also, we observed a quite remarkable explosion of publications per author which can, paradoxical as it may sound, probably not be interpreted as an increase in productivity of scientists, but as the effect of an increase in the number of co-authors and the strategic effect of networks

Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research

In this article, a critical analysis is performed on differences in citation frequency of basic and clinical cardiovascular papers. It appears that the latter papers are cited at about 40% higher frequency. The differences between the largest number of citations of the most cited papers are even larger. It is also demonstrated that the groups of clinical and basic cardiovascular papers are also heterogeneous concerning citation frequency. It is concluded that none of the existing citation indicators appreciates these differences. At this moment these indicators should not be used for quality assessment of individual scientists and scientific niches with small numbers of scientists

A Rejoinder on Energy versus Impact Indicators

Citation distributions are so skewed that using the mean or any other central tendency measure is ill-advised. Unlike G. Prathap's scalar measures (Energy, Exergy, and Entropy or EEE), the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) is based on non-parametric statistics using the (100) percentiles of the distribution. Observed values can be tested against expected ones; impact can be qualified at the article level and then aggregated.Comment: Scientometrics, in pres

The assessment of science: the relative merits of post- publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations

The assessment of scientific publications is an integral part of the scientific process. Here we investigate three methods of assessing the merit of a scientific paper: subjective post-publication peer review, the number of citations gained by a paper, and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published. We investigate these methods using two datasets in which subjective post-publication assessments of scientific publications have been made by experts. We find that there are moderate, but statistically significant, correlations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same paper, and between assessor score and the number of citations a paper accrues. However, we show that assessor score depends strongly on the journal in which the paper is published, and that assessors tend to over-rate papers published in journals with high impact factors. If we control for this bias, we find that the correlation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the number of citations is weak, suggesting that scientists have little ability to judge either the intrinsic merit of a paper or its likely impact. We also show that the number of citations a paper receives is an extremely error-prone measure of scientific merit. Finally, we argue that the impact factor is likely to be a poor measure of merit, since it depends on subjective assessment. We conclude that the three measures of scientific merit considered here are poor; in particular subjective assessments are an error-prone, biased, and expensive method by which to assess merit. We argue that the impact factor may be the most satisfactory of the methods we have considered, since it is a form of pre-publication review. However, we emphasise that it is likely to be a very error-prone measure of merit that is qualitative, not quantitative

Non-invasive evaluation of ventricular refractoriness and its dispersion during ventricular fibrillation in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND: Local ventricular refractoriness and its dispersion during ventricular fibrillation (VF) have not been well evaluated, due to methodological difficulties. METHODS: In this study, a non-invasive method was used in evaluation of local ventricular refractoriness and its dispersion during induced VF in 11 patients with VF and/or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) who have implanted an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Bipolar electrograms were simultaneously recorded from the lower oesophagus behind the posterior left ventricle (LV) via an oesophageal electrode and from the right ventricular (RV) apex via telemetry from the implanted ICD. VF intervals were used as an estimate of the ventricular effective refractory period (VERP). In 6 patients, VERP was also measured during sinus rhythm at the RV apex and outflow tract (RVOT) using conventional extra stimulus technique. RESULTS: Electrograms recorded from the RV apex and the lower esophagus behind the posterior LV manifested distinct differences of the local ventricular activities. The estimated VERPs during induced VF in the RV apex were significantly shorter than that measured during sinus rhythm using extra stimulus technique. The maximal dispersion of the estimated VERPs during induced VF between the RV apex and posterior LV was that of 10 percentile VF interval (40 ± 27 ms), that is markedly greater than the previously reported dispersion of ventricular repolarization without malignant ventricular arrhythmias (30–36 ms). CONCLUSIONS: This study verified the feasibility of recording local ventricular activities via oesophageal electrode and via telemetry from an implanted ICD and the usefulness of VF intervals obtained using this non-invasive technique in evaluation of the dispersion of refractoriness in patients with ICD implantation

Hirsch Index and Truth Survival in Clinical Research

BACKGROUND: Factors associated with the survival of truth of clinical conclusions in the medical literature are unknown. We hypothesized that publications with a first author having a higher Hirsch' index value (h-I), which quantifies and predicts an individual's scientific research output, should have a longer half-life. METHODS AND RESULTS: 474 original articles concerning cirrhosis or hepatitis published from 1945 to 1999 were selected. The survivals of the main conclusions were updated in 2009. The truth survival was assessed by time-dependent methods (Kaplan Meier method and Cox). A conclusion was considered to be true, obsolete or false when three or more observers out of the six stated it to be so. 284 out of 474 conclusions (60%) were still considered true, 90 (19%) were considered obsolete and 100 (21%) false. The median of the h-I was=24 (range 1-85). Authors with true conclusions had significantly higher h-I (median=28) than those with obsolete (h-I=19; P=0.002) or false conclusions (h-I=19; P=0.01). The factors associated (P<0.0001) with h-I were: scientific life (h-I=33 for>30 years vs. 16 for<30 years), -methodological quality score (h-I=36 for high vs. 20 for low scores), and -positive predictive value combining power, ratio of true to not-true relationships and bias (h-I=33 for high vs. 20 for low values). In multivariate analysis, the risk ratio of h-I was 1.003 (95%CI, 0.994-1.011), and was not significant (P=0.56). In a subgroup restricted to 111 articles with a negative conclusion, we observed a significant independent prognostic value of h-I (risk ratio=1.033; 95%CI, 1.008-1.059; P=0.009). Using an extrapolation of h-I at the time of article publication there was a significant and independent prognostic value of baseline h-I (risk ratio=0.027; P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to clearly demonstrate that the h-index of authors was a prognostic factor for truth survival. However the h-index was associated with true conclusions, methodological quality of trials and positive predictive values