Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Copublication promotes dissemination hypertension guidelines: a retrospective cohort study

Hypertension Research volume 47, pages 416–426 (2024)Cite this article

Abstract

To evaluate the impact of copublication on hypertension-related clinical practice guidelines‘ citation, we searched the Web of Science Core Collection and guide.medlive.cn until 31 December 2017 using the terms “hypertension” and “guideline”. The copublished group was matched with the noncopublished group at a 1:2 ratio. Primary outcomes were total citations and citations within the first five years after publication. Secondary outcomes included the adjusted impact factor ratio (excluding copublished guidelines) to the actual impact factor of the journal. Altmetric scores were compared using Altmetric explorer data. 21 copublished and 42 noncopublished guidelines were included. The copublished group had higher median current total citations [387.0 (90.0, 1806.0) vs 70.5 (23.25, 158.25)], and higher median citations at one, two, three, four, and five years [7.0 (0.5, 58.5) vs 1.0 (0.0, 5.5), 33.0 (14.0, 142.0) vs 5.5 (1.75, 26.25), 46.0 (24.5, 216.0) vs 10.5 (3, 25.75), 50.0 (19.0, 229.0) vs 9.0 (3.0, 19.0), 52.0 (13.5, 147.0) vs 7.0 (2.0, 20.0), all p < 0.05]. The adjusted IF analysis showed that if they had not copublished the guidelines, 10 of 24 and 11 of 24 journals would have had a lower IF in the first and second years. Median altmetric scores were significantly higher for copublished guidelines [38.5 (9.5, 90.5) vs 3.5 (1.0, 9.0)] (p < 0.05). Copublication is associated with a higher citation frequency of hypertension guidelines and may increase the journal IF. Positive impacts extend beyond academia, benefiting society through broader guideline application and dissemination. This facilitates broader application of guidelines and promotes their dissemination.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to demonstrate how copublication promotes the dissemination of hypertension guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. (2019). http://www.icmje.org/. Accessed 5 October 2022.

  2. Zhu L, Zhang Y, Yang R, Wu Y, Lei Y, Zhang Y, et al. Copublication improved the dissemination of Cochrane reviews and benefited copublishing journals: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:110–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang X, Hawkins BS, Dickersin K. Cochrane systematic reviews and copublication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions. Syst Rev. 2015;4:118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Institute of Medicine Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. In: Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: Directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1990.

  5. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182:E839–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen Y, Yang K, Marušic A, Qaseem A, Meerpohl JJ, Flottorp S, et al. A reporting tool for practice guidelines in health care: the RIGHT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:128–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pat JJ, Witte LPW, Steffens MG, Vernooij RWM, Marcelissen TAT, Fuentes P, et al. Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for recurrent urinary tract infections using AGREE II: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33:1059–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Xiao Y, Jiang L, Tong Y, Luo X, He J, Liu L, et al. Evaluation of the quality of guidelines for assisted reproductive technology using the RIGHT checklist: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;241:42–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wayant C, Cooper C, Turner D, Vassar M. Evaluation of the NCCN guidelines using the RIGHT statement and AGREE-II instrument: a cross-sectional review. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019;24:219–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yun X, Yaolong C, Zhao Z, Qi Z, Yangyang W, Runshen X, et al. Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0207580.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Association RCfGaSotJotCM, Center WGIaKTC. 2020 Evaluation Report on Guidelines for Publication of Chinese Medical Association Journals. Natl Med J China. 2021;101:1839–47.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lixin K, Jinjing W, Hao W, Yujie X, Zijun W, Gang C, et al. Reporting quality evaluation of clinical practice guidelines published in journals of mainland China in 2016. Chin J Evid Based Pediatr. 2018;13:194–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wang Yu L, Han X. Reporting criteria of clinical practice guidelines for hypertension based on RIGHT statement. World J Integr Tradit West Med. 2022;17:870–5.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lee J, Lee JS, Park SH, Shin SA, Kim K. Cohort profile: the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC), South Korea. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46:e15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hwangbo Y, Kang D, Kang M, Kim S, Lee EK, Kim YA, et al. Incidence of diabetes after cancer development: A Korean National Cohort Study. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:1099–105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Yunlan L, Jingyi Z, Qianling S, Nan Y, Zijun W, Xufei L, et al. Investigation and evaluation of Chinese Clinical Practice Guidelines Published in Medical Journals in 2019: methodological and reporting quality. Med J Peking Union Med Coll Hosp. 2022;13:324–31.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lin I, Wiles LK, Waller R, Goucke R, Nagree Y, Gibberd M, et al. Poor overall quality of clinical practice guidelines for musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:337–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell P. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2008;8:5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Neylon C, Wu S. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol. 2009;7:e1000242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Haven TL, Bouter LM, Smulders YM, Tijdink JK. Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0217931.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pearlman AS. Copublication-what you always wanted to know but have been afraid to ask! J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011;24:346–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. GD W. The citation life cycle of articles published in 13 American Psychological Association journals: a 25-year longitudinal analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62:1629–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Madhugiri VS, Sasidharan GM, Subeikshanan V, Dutt A, Ambekar S, Strom SF. An analysis of the citation climate in neurosurgical literature and description of an interfield citation metric. Neurosurgery. 2015;76:505–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Roldan-Valadez E, Salazar-Ruiz SY, Ibarra-Contreras R, Rios C. Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Ir J Med Sci. 2019;188:939–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kianifar H, Sadeghi R, Zarifmahmoudi L. Comparison between Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCimago Journal Rank Indicator of Pediatric Neurology Journals. Acta Inform Med. 2014;22:103–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ascaso FJ. [Impact factor, eigenfactor and article influence]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2011;86:1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tokalić R, Viđak M, Buljan I, Marušić A. Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist. Implement Sci. 2018;13:135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Alam M, Getchius TS, Schünemann H, Amer YS, Bak A, Fatheree LA, et al. A memorandum of understanding has facilitated guideline development involving collaborating groups. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;144:8–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fischer F, Lange K, Klose K, Greiner W, Kraemer A. Barriers and strategies in guideline implementation-a scoping review. Healthcare. 2016;4:1–16.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Key Clinical Specialty of China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Practice Ward/International Medical Center Ward, General Practice Medical Center and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

    Linlin Zhu, Yang Wu, Rong Yang, Ziyu Yang, Lidi Liu, Yuan Yao, Xiang Fang, Qian Xie, Hongyu Deng & Xiaoyang Liao

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China

    Yu Zhang

  3. Department of Periodical Press and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichu an University, Chengdu, China

    Yonggang Zhang

Authors
  1. Linlin Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yang Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ziyu Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lidi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuan Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiang Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Qian Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hongyu Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yonggang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Xiaoyang Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LLZ participated in the formal analysis, investigation, visualization, and writing of the original draft. YW participated in data extraction. YW, YZ, RY, ZYY, LDL, YY, XF, QX, and HYD participated in the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. YGZ and XYL participated in the design of the study, revised the manuscript, and provided final approval of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yonggang Zhang or Xiaoyang Liao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

#1 TI = (Hypertension)

#2 TI = (High blood pressure)

#3 #1 OR #2

#4 TI = (Recommendation*)

#5 TI = (Guideline*)

#6 TI = (Consensus)

#7 #4 OR #5 OR #6

#8 #3 AND #7

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhu, L., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y. et al. Copublication promotes dissemination hypertension guidelines: a retrospective cohort study. Hypertens Res 47, 416–426 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-023-01470-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-023-01470-0

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links