Top 100 articles on vitamin D: bibliometric versus altmetric analysis

This article was originally published here

Bratisl Lek Listy. 2022;123(3):160-171. doi:10.4149/BLL_2022_027.


OBJECTIVE: To analyze the main characteristics of the 100 most cited articles (T100) in academia and the 100 most discussed articles on social networks about vitamin D from 1975 to 2021 and compare the bibliometric and altmetric analyses.

METHODS: “Vitamin D” was searched from the Web of Science database and the website, and T100 and altmetric citation lists were created, respectively. Articles from both lists were analyzed in terms of study type, subject, first author, year of publication, citation number, and altmetric attention score (AAS). The impact factor (IF) and quartile of the journal in which the articles were published were 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), the original scientific article was the most frequent type of study in both lists. No correlation was found between AAS and citation number in the two lists (r = 0.176, p = 0.081; r = 0.157, p = 0.119, respectively). Journals in the T100 citation list had a statistically significantly higher IF than journals in the T100 altmetric list (p

CONCLUSION: Vitamin D altmetric analysis is currently insufficient to replace traditional bibliometric analysis but may provide valuable information of societal interest. As social media grows in importance every day in our lives, a high altmetric score could affect future interests and direct studies (Tab. 6, Fig. 3, Ref. 21).

PMID:35343747 | DOI:10.4149/BLL_2022_027

Comments are closed.