4.4 Article

The top 100 most-cited papers in Paediatric Dentistry journals: A bibliometric analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 692-711

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12563

Keywords

bibliographic databases; bibliometrics; evidence-based dentistry; journal article; Paediatric Dentistry; publications

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The most-cited papers help to better understand important characteristics of this specific science field. Objective: To analyse the 100 most-cited papers in the field of Paediatric Dentistry. Design: A search of the most-cited papers in Paediatric Dentistry journals was performed using journals included in the category of 'Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine' in the Thompson Reuters Web of Science citation indexing database up to December 2018. Two researchers performed the data extraction, which included: number of citations, title, authors, country, year, journals, study design, and thematic area. Results: The number of citations of each paper included in the top 100 most-cited ranged from 42 to 182 (mean: 64.51). Seven papers were cited more than 100 times. Most of the papers were published in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry (36%), between 2006 and 2015 (55%), with a cross-sectional design (39%). Twentysix authors participated in two or more papers. The countries with the highest number of most-cited papers were the United States (25%), Australia (11%), and Brazil (9%). Cariology was the most studied thematic area. Conclusion: The evaluation of the top 100 most-cited papers in Paediatric Dentistry journals allowed for a better understanding of the world scenario regarding this research field.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available