Authors: Cheong Lieng Teng, Kean Ghee Lim, Ee Ming Khoo, Chirk Jenn Ng, Lee Yen Chong, Mei Yee Lee, Nawal Aqilah Amir, Jia Ling Voon, Wilson Wei Sheng Chin.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To evaluate study designs and citation counts of original research published in the Medical Journal of Malaysia (MJM).
Methods: The bibliographic data of the MJM for the period 1980-2016 were retrieved from PubMed and analysed using Endnote bibliographic software. Study designs of original journal articles were analysed according to whether the articles were diagnostic study, prognostic study or clinical trial (collectively known as “evidence papers”). The citation counts of the original articles and case reports for the period 2012-2016 were compared in a sub-study using a case-control design.
Results: A total of 3952 MJM journal items were retrieved from PubMed for the period 1980-2016; of these, 58.9% were original articles and 29.5% were case reports. Among the original articles, 14.6% were “evidence papers”; 2.3% were diagnostic studies, 7.7% were prognostic studies, 4.6% were clinical trials. In the study period 2012-2016, “other types of original articles” had statistically significantly more citations than case reports. However, there is no difference between “evidence papers” and case reports.
Conclusion: Our analysis shows the distribution of the types of articles appearing in the MJM for the period of study and serves as a reference for improving citations counts in the local context.
Keywords: Bibliometrics; Citation count; Medical Journal of Malaysia; Study design.
Citation: IeJSME 2019 13(1): 26-32
