Does quality of research in otolaryngology correlate with academic impact?

Abstract

Abstract Objective To determine if the quality of otolaryngology‐related journal articles correlates with traditional measures of article impact. Methods All articles published by Laryngoscope in 2011 were categorized according to level of evidence (LOE) according to the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine rubric. Articles without a level of evidence assigned were alphabetically subcategorized type with letters A‐D corresponding to Contemporary Reports, Case Reports, Basic Science or Animal Studies, and Other respectively. Citations per article were then recorded per article each year from 2012 to 2018. Results A total of 494 articles were included for analysis, 315 had numerical LOE and 179 had alphabetical LOE. There was a strong negative correlation between numerical LOE and median and interquartile number of citations (R = −.9014, P = .037). Overall, numerical LOE had a significantly higher median number of citations per article compared with the non‐number/alphabetical group (14 vs 6, P < .001). Conclusions Higher quality research as determined by level of evidence is in fact being cited more frequently than lower quality articles. Although the scope of this study was relatively limited, these data suggest that better designed studies may exhibit greater impact by traditional measures. Such findings should serve as an impetus for (and validation of) continued pursuit of high LOE research. Level of Evidence NA.

Keywords

• bibliometrics
• citation
• impact
• level of evidence
• quality