Skip to main content

Table 2 Numbers of citations of co-publications and corresponding CEVG reviews, as of June 11, 2014

From: Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions

Co-publication (N = 22) No of citations, Google Scholar No. of citations, Web of Science No. of citations, Scopus CEVG review (N = 19) No. of citations, Google Scholar No. of citations Web of Science No. of citations, Scopus
Barsam 2012 [20] 3 1 1 Barsam 2010 [19] 23 7 4
Buehl 2008 [22] 40 22 22 Findl 2007 [21] 100 43 37
Calderon 2011 [11] 32 20 21 Calderon 2011 [7] 19 7 1
Calderon 2012 [12] N/Aa N/Aa 0
Evans 2008 [4] 82 37 49 Evans 2006 [5] 111 45 14
Evans 2008 [6] 28 33 35
Fedorowicz 2006 [24] 12 8 6 Fedorowicz 2005 [23] 47 1 0
Gnanaraj 2005 [34] 12 3 9 Richardson 2003 [33] 32 4 12
Leyland 2003 [28] 183 109 130 Leyland 2001 [27] 87 26 18
Lueck 2002 [30] 11 N/Aa 8 Lueck 2002 [29] 77 0 10
Mabey 2003 [32] N/Aa N/Aa 5 Mabey 2002 [31] 69 6 9
Sheikh 2001 [13] 81 43 52 Sheikh 2000 [8] 158 33 21
Sheikh 2005 [14] 54 25 30
Shortt 2006 [36] 69 39 50 Shortt 2006 [35] 7 0 3
Shotton 2009 [15] N/Aa N/Aa N/Aa Shotton 2008 [9] 4 7 8
Shotton 2009 [16] N/Aa N/Aa N/Aa
Sivaprasad 2005 [38] 43 22 31 Sivaprasad 2005 [37] 83 2 8
Smeeth 1998 [40] 40 28 34 Smeeth 1998 [39] 44 7 4
Stanford 2003 [26] 79 36 48 Gilbert 2002 [25] 31 0 0
Wilhelmus 2000 [42] 42 N/Aa 28 Wilhelmus 2001 [41] 23 7 4
Wilkinson 1999 [17] 10 N/Aa 6 Wilkinson 2001 [10] 36 0 2
Wilkinson 2000 [18] 90 38 50
Wormald 2005 [44] N/Aa N/Aa N/Aa Wormald 2005 [43] 146 35 34
Median 42 26.5 28   40 7 8
Range 3 to 183 1 to 109 0 to 130   4 to 158 0 to 78 0 to 49
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank testb P = 0.32 P = 0.07 P = 0.004     
  1. All numbers cited include self-citations
  2. aN/A indicates that the article was not found in Google Scholar, Web of Science or Scopus, sometimes because the journal was not indexed
  3. bThe Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was used to test the difference between the number of citations to each co-publication and its corresponding CEVG review in each database (Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus, respectively). We considered a value of P < 0.05 to indicate a statistically significant difference in numbers of citations between a co-publication and its corresponding CEVG review