Citation impact was highly variable for reporting guidelines of health research: a citation analysis

• Published in: Journal of clinical epidemiology 2020-11, Vol.127, p.96-104
• Main Authors: Caulley, Lisa, Cheng, Wei, Catalá-López, Ferrán, Whelan, Jonathan, Khoury, Michel, Ferraro, Jennifer, Husereau, Don, Altman, Douglas G., Moher, David
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Authorship; Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Citation impact; Clinical trials; Confidence Intervals; Data Analysis; Digital Object Identifier; Epidemiology; Gender; Guidelines; Guidelines as Topic; Impact factors; Journal Impact Factor; Medical research; Open access publishing; Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data; Quality of reporting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards; Reporting guidelines; Research Report - standards; Science; Sex Factors; Standardized reporting; Time Factors
• ISSN: 0895-4356; 1878-5921
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.013

Over 400 reporting guidelines are currently published, but the frequency of their use by authors to accurately and transparently report research remains unclear. This study examined citation counts of reporting guidelines and characteristics contributing to their citation impact. Web of Science database was searched for citation counts of all reporting guidelines with a minimum citation age of 5 years. The total citation impact, mean citation impact and the factors contributing to 2- and 5-year citation rate were established. The search identified 296 articles of reporting guidelines from 1995 to 2013. The mean citations per year was 32.4 (95% confidence interval, 22.3–42.4 citations). The factors associated with 2- and 5-year citation performance of reporting guidelines included the following: open access to the reporting guideline, field of the publishing journal (general vs. specialized medical journal), impact factor of the publishing journal, simultaneous publication in multiple journals, and a male first author. The citation rate across reporting guidelines varied with journal impact factor, open access publication, field of the publishing journal, simultaneous publications, and a male first author. Gaps in citations highlight opportunities to increase visibility and encourage author use of reporting guidelines. •Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was most cited (36,407 citations).•Citation impact varied by open access status, journal impact factor, concurrent publications, and a male first author.•Only 1.4% of clinical trials published in major journals cited the CONSORT statement.