↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the informatician perspective: determining types of research papers preferred by clinicians

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the informatician perspective: determining types of research papers preferred by clinicians
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0463-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boshu Ru, Xiaoyan Wang, Lixia Yao

Abstract

To deliver evidence-based medicine, clinicians often reference resources that are useful to their respective medical practices. Owing to their busy schedules, however, clinicians typically find it challenging to locate these relevant resources out of the rapidly growing number of journals and articles currently being published. The literature-recommender system may provide a possible solution to this issue if the individual needs of clinicians can be identified and applied. We thus collected from the CiteULike website a sample of 96 clinicians and 6,221 scientific articles that they read. We examined the journal distributions, publication types, reading times, and geographic locations. We then compared the distributions of MeSH terms associated with these articles with those of randomly sampled MEDLINE articles using two-sample Z-test and multiple comparison correction, in order to identify the important topics relevant to clinicians. We determined that the sampled clinicians followed the latest literature in a timely manner and read papers that are considered landmarks in medical research history. They preferred to read scientific discoveries from human experiments instead of molecular-, cellular- or animal-model-based experiments. Furthermore, the country of publication may impact reading preferences, particularly for clinicians from Egypt, India, Norway, Senegal, and South Africa. These findings provide useful guidance for developing personalized literature-recommender systems for clinicians.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 23%
Computer Science 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 20%