Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How do urogynecology and pelvic floor dysfunction terms used in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery research relate to social media indicators?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The association between social media (SoMe) indicators and citation metrics is still controversial. we aimed to evaluate the frequency of urogynecology-related terms (“urogynecology” [UG] and “pelvic floor/dysfunction” [PF/PFD]) mentioned by traditional databases (Web of Science [WOS]) and journal ranking indicators (SCImago), as well as their association with SoMe (Altmetric database).

Methods

In April 2019, two authors performed a search that was divided into three steps. The first one was to assess journals within the WOS Obstetrics/Gynecology and Urology categories updated to 2017 using UG and PF/PFD. The second step was to rank these studies in SCImago by the highest numbers of WOS and to correlate with journal h-index and SJR. The third step was to analyze SoMe indicators such as the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) for each study and journal retrieved.

Results

The International Urogynecology Journal (IUJ) and Neurourology and Urodynamics (NAU) were the first (n = 1,394) and second (n = 974) most highly cited journals when using UG and PFD. IUJ also presented manuscripts with the highest AAS for UG and PF/PFD. Social media represented 74–93% of AAS calculated among the 20 top cited studies. For UG, SoMe presented 8,050 mentions, led by Twitter (n = 7,326). The same distribution was seen for PFD (8,493 mentions for SoMe, Twitter with 7,653). The higher the WOS citation, the higher the AAS (r = 0.483; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

UG and PF/PFD terms are highly cited in databases and IUJ was the journal most frequently connected with them. Among SoMe tools, Twitter was the most frequently cited. WOS citations correlated with AAS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mclennan MT, Leong FC, Steele AC, Harris JK. The influence of national society annual scientific meetings on publication in general obstetrics and gynecology literature: a urogynecology perspective. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(12):1463–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Garfield E. 100 citation classics from the journal of the American Medical Association. JAMA. 1987;257(1):52–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Trueger NS, Thoma B, Hsu CH, Sullivan D, Peters L, Lin M. The altmetric score: a new measure for article-level dissemination and impact. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;66:549–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bornmann L, Haunschild R. Do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based on F1000Prime data. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e097133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chandrasekar T, Goldberg H, Klaassen Z, Wallis CJ, Leong JY, Liem S, et al. Twitter and academic urology in the United States and Canada: a comprehensive assessment of the Twitterverse in 2019. BJU Int. 2020;125:173–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gupta A, Kennedy B, Meriwether K, Francis SL, Cardenas-Trowers O, Ryan Stewart J. Citation classics: the 100 most cited articles in urogyneccology. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:249–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal]. http://www.scimagojr.com. Accessed March 2019

  8. 2017 Journal Impact Factor, Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2018).

  9. Altmetric. Altmetric database in JSON format: unpublished raw data; 2019.

  10. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Grisffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jeong JW, Kim MJ, Oh HK, et al. The impact of social media on citation rates in coloproctology. Colorectal Dis. 2019;21:1175–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayon S, Tripathi H, Stormont IM, Dunne MM, Naslund MJ, Siddiqui MM. Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic literature. Urology. 2019;123:28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ladeiras-Lopes R, Clarke S, Vidal-Perez R, Alexander M, Luscher TF; ESC (European Society of Cardiology) Media Committee and European Heart Journal. Twitter promotion predicts citation rates of cardiovascular articles: a preliminary analysis from the ESC Journals Randomized Study. Eur Heart J.2020;doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jallad K, Iglesia CB. Why urogynecologists need to be on social media. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(5):281–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brito LG. Is social media really impacting urogynecology? Int Urogynecol J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04361-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Altmetric LLP for providing this study’s data free of charge with the goal of research/publication.

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Nível Superior, code 001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

    Glaucia Miranda Varella Pereira, Samantha Condé Rocha, Helymar da Costa Machado & Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito

  2. Rua Alexander Fleming, 101—Cidade Universitária—Campinas, São Paulo, 13083-881, Brazil

    Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito

Authors
  1. Glaucia Miranda Varella Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samantha Condé Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helymar da Costa Machado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.G.O. Brito: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; G.M.V. Pereira: project development, data collection, manuscript writing/editing; S.C. Rocha: data collection, manuscript editing; H.d.C. Machado: data analysis, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pereira, G.M.V., Rocha, S.C., da Costa Machado, H. et al. How do urogynecology and pelvic floor dysfunction terms used in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery research relate to social media indicators?. Int Urogynecol J 32, 1143–1149 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04438-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04438-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation