Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1017/cts.2016.8 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1017/cts.2016.8 C5408837!5408837 !28480055     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=28480055 &cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\28480055 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       J+Clin+Transl+Sci 2017 ; 1 (1 ): 45-52 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=28480055 |t=2017. Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science |pdf=|usr=}}{{28480055 }} gab.com Text Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science JO: J Clin Transl Sci http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28480055 #FOAvip INTRODUCTION: A pilot study by 6 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) explored how bibliometrics can be used to assess research influence. METHODS: Evaluators from 6 institutions shared data on publications (4202 total) they supported, and conducted a combined analysis with state-of-the-art tools. This paper presents selected results based on the tools from 2 widely used vendors for bibliometrics: Thomson Reuters and Elsevier. RESULTS: Both vendors located a high percentage of publications within their proprietary databases (>90%) and provided similar but not equivalent bibliometrics for estimating productivity (number of publications) and influence (citation rates, percentage of papers in the top 10% of citations, observed citations relative to expected citations). A recently available bibliometric from the National Institutes of Health Office of Portfolio Analysis, examined after the initial analysis, showed tremendous potential for use in the CTSA context. CONCLUSION: Despite challenges in making cross-CTSA comparisons, bibliometrics can enhance our understanding of the value of CTSA-supported clinical and translational research. Twit Text FOAVip Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science ????J Clin Transl Sci http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28480055 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28480055 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|28480055 }}</ref> Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science #MMPMID28480055 Schneider M ; Kane CM ; Rainwater J ; Guerrero L ; Tong G ; Desai SR ; Trochim W J Clin Transl Sci 2017[Feb]; 1 (1 ): 45-52 PMID28480055 show ga INTRODUCTION: A pilot study by 6 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) explored how bibliometrics can be used to assess research influence. METHODS: Evaluators from 6 institutions shared data on publications (4202 total) they supported, and conducted a combined analysis with state-of-the-art tools. This paper presents selected results based on the tools from 2 widely used vendors for bibliometrics: Thomson Reuters and Elsevier. RESULTS: Both vendors located a high percentage of publications within their proprietary databases (>90%) and provided similar but not equivalent bibliometrics for estimating productivity (number of publications) and influence (citation rates, percentage of papers in the top 10% of citations, observed citations relative to expected citations). A recently available bibliometric from the National Institutes of Health Office of Portfolio Analysis, examined after the initial analysis, showed tremendous potential for use in the CTSA context. CONCLUSION: Despite challenges in making cross-CTSA comparisons, bibliometrics can enhance our understanding of the value of CTSA-supported clinical and translational research. äFeasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational scienc(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing