How biomedical papers accumulated their clinical citations: a large-scale retrospective analysis based on PubMed

• Published in: Scientometrics 2024, Vol.129 (6), p.3315-3339
• Main Authors: Li, Xin, Tang, Xuli, Lu, Wei
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accumulation; Biomedical data; Clinical trials; Computer Science; Government policy; Information Storage and Retrieval; Library Science; Medical research; Pharmaceutical industry; Public policy; Science; Translation
• ISSN: 0138-9130; 1588-2861
• DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05016-0

This paper explored the temporal characteristics of clinical citations of biomedical papers, including how long it takes to receive its first clinical citation (the initial stage) and how long it takes to receive two or more clinical citations after its first clinical citation (the build-up stage). Over 23 million biomedical papers in PubMed between 1940 and 2013 and their clinical citations are used as the research data. We divide these biomedical papers into three groups and four categories from clinical citation level and translational science perspectives. We compare the temporal characteristics of biomedical papers of different groups or categories. From the perspective of clinical citation level, the results show that highly clinically cited papers had obvious advantages of receiving clinical citations over medium and lowly clinically cited papers in both the initial and build-up stages. Meanwhile, as the number of clinical citations increased in the build-up stage, the difference in the length of time to receive the corresponding number of clinical citations among the three groups of biomedical papers significantly increased. From the perspective of translational science, the results reveal that biomedical papers closer to clinical science more easily receive clinical citations than papers closer to basic science in both the initial and build-up stages. Moreover, we found that highly clinically cited papers had the desperate advantage of receiving clinical citations over even the clinical guidelines or clinical trials. The robustness analysis of the two aspects demonstrates the reliability of our results. The indicators proposed in this paper could be useful for pharmaceutical companies and government policy-makers to monitor the translational progress of biomedical research. Besides, the findings in this study could be interesting for young scholars in biomedicine to get more attention from clinical science and to obtain success in their scientific careers, especially for those in basic science.