AIM: To compare the quality of CT brain images produced by a fixed CT scanner and a portable CT scanner (CereTom).
METHODS: This work was a single-centre retrospective study of CT brain images from 112 neurosurgical patients. Hounsfield units (HUs) of the images from CereTom were measured for air, water and bone. Three assessors independently evaluated the images from the fixed CT scanner and CereTom. Streak artefacts, visualisation of lesions and grey-white matter differentiation were evaluated at three different levels (centrum semiovale, basal ganglia and middle cerebellar peduncles). Each evaluation was scored 1 (poor), 2 (average) or 3 (good) and summed up to form an ordinal reading of 3 to 9.
RESULTS: HUs for air, water and bone from CereTom were within the recommended value by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Streak artefact evaluation scores for the fixed CT scanner was 8.54 versus 7.46 (Z = -5.67) for CereTom at the centrum semiovale, 8.38 (SD = 1.12) versus 7.32 (SD = 1.63) at the basal ganglia and 8.21 (SD = 1.30) versus 6.97 (SD = 2.77) at the middle cerebellar peduncles. Grey-white matter differentiation showed scores of 8.27 (SD = 1.04) versus 7.21 (SD = 1.41) at the centrum semiovale, 8.26 (SD = 1.07) versus 7.00 (SD = 1.47) at the basal ganglia and 8.38 (SD = 1.11) versus 6.74 (SD = 1.55) at the middle cerebellar peduncles. Visualisation of lesions showed scores of 8.86 versus 8.21 (Z = -4.24) at the centrum semiovale, 8.93 versus 8.18 (Z = -5.32) at the basal ganglia and 8.79 versus 8.06 (Z = -4.93) at the middle cerebellar peduncles. All results were significant with P-value < 0.01.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study showed a significant difference in image quality produced by the fixed CT scanner and CereTom, with the latter being more inferior than the former. However, HUs of the images produced by CereTom do fulfil the recommendation of the ACR.
METHODOLOGY: The Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science 'All Databases' was used to search and analyse the 100 most frequently cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses having 'randomized', 'randomised', 'randomized controlled', 'randomised controlled', 'randomized controlled trial', 'randomized controlled trials', 'clinical trial', 'systematic', 'systematic review', 'meta-analysis', and 'meta-analyses' in the title section. The 'International Endodontic Journal', 'Journal of Endodontics', 'Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology', 'Australian Endodontic Journal', 'Endodontics & Dental Traumatology', 'Endo-Endodontic Practice Today' and 'European Endodontic Journal' were included in the publication name section. After ranking the articles in a descending order based on their citation counts, each article was cross-matched with the citation counts in Elsevier's Scopus and Google Scholar. The articles were analysed, and information on citation counts, citation density, year of publication, contributing authors, institutions and countries, journal of publication, study design, topic of the article and keywords was extracted.
RESULTS: The citation counts of the 100 most-cited articles varied from 235 to 20 (Web of Science), 276 to 17 (Scopus) and 696 to 1 (Google Scholar). The year in which the top 100 articles were published was 2010 (n = 13). Among 373 authors, the greatest number of articles was associated with three individuals namely Reader A (n = 5), Beck M (n = 5) and Kvist T (n = 5). Most of the articles originated from the United States (n = 24) with the greatest contribution from Ohio State University (USA) (n = 5). Randomized controlled trials were the most frequent study design (n = 45) followed by systematic reviews (n = 30) with outcome studies of root canal treatment being the major topic (n = 35). The Journal of Endodontics published the largest number of included articles (n = 70) followed by the International Endodontic Journal (n = 27). Among 259 unique keywords, meta-analysis (n = 23) and systematic review (n = 23) were the most frequently used.
CONCLUSION: This study has revealed that year of publication had no obvious impact on citation count. The bibliometric analysis highlighted the quantity and quality of research, and the evolution of scientific advancements made in the field of Endodontology over time. Articles before 1996, that is prior to the CONSORT statement that encouraged authors to include specific terms in the title and keywords, may not have been included in this electronic search.
METHODS: Elsevier's Scopus was used to search and analyze the 50 most frequently cited scientific papers. After the screening process, two reviewers arranged the articles in a descending order based on their citation counts. Each article was then cross-matched with Google Scholar. The articles were analyzed, and information including citation counts, citation density, publication year, authorship, contributing institutions and countries, article topic, study design, and keywords was extracted.
RESULTS: The literature search identified 2421 articles. The citation counts of the 50 selected articles varied from 117 to 580 (Scopus) and 206 to 1130 (Google Scholar). The year in which most top 50 articles were published was 2002 (n = 5). Among 105 authors, the greatest contribution was made by JO Andreasen (n = 12). Most of the articles originated from the United States (n = 12) with the greatest contributions from the University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark (n = 6). Original research article was the most frequent study design (n = 34). The majority of the top 50 articles were focused on traumatic dental injuries. Among 131 unique key words, root resorption (n = 6) was the most frequently used. A non-significant correlation occurred between citation count (correlation coefficient = 0.127, P = .378), citation density (correlation coefficient = 0.654, P = 2.493), and publication age.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the top 50 most cited articles published in this journal in the specialty of Dental Traumatology. The publication year of an article was not significantly associated with citation count nor citation density.
METHODS: An electronic search was conducted on the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science "All Databases" to identify and analyze the top 50 most frequently cited scientific articles. After ranking the articles in a descending order based on their citation counts, each article was then crossmatched with the citation counts in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed.
RESULTS: The citation counts of the 50 selected most cited articles ranged between 218 and 731 (Clarivate Analytics Web of Science). The years in which most top 50 articles were published were 2004 and 2008 (n = 5). Among 131 authors, the greatest contribution was made by M. Torabinejad (n = 14). Most of the articles originated from the United States (n = 38) with the greatest contributions from the School of Dentistry, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA (n = 15). Basic research-technology was the most frequent study design (n = 18). A negative, significant correlation occurred between citation density and publication age (correlation coefficient = -0.708, P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Several interesting differences were found between the main characteristics of the most cited articles and the most downloaded articles.