TY - JOUR T1 - A bibliometric analysis of the highest cited and highest category normalised articles in radiological literature from 2009-2019 JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.11.14.20231944 SP - 2020.11.14.20231944 AU - Nicholas McKay Parry AU - Justin Rich AU - Michael Erian AU - Thomas Lloyd Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/17/2020.11.14.20231944.abstract N2 - Rationale and Objective Citation-based metrics are frequently used to evaluate the academic performance of a publication. One such metric is the number of citations an article receives, however this is not an infallible index. To account for biases of this metric the category-normalised citation index (CNCI), termed ‘impact’, may be used. Here the 100 highest-cited and highest-CNCI articles in radiological literature, from 2009 – 2019 is performed.Materials and Methods The Web of Science Core Collection and InCites (Clarivate Analytics) databases were accessed for the citations and CNCI values for articles published in the 186 journals with category “radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging” between 2009 and 2019. The top 100 articles with the highest citation count and highest CNCI values were collected. Article parameters were analysed including title, year of publication, citation count, CNCI, field of study and modality studied were analysed.Results Fifty-three articles were common to both lists. Neuroradiology was the most prevalent subspecialty studied in both the highest-cited (n = 68) and highest-impact (n = 41) lists, respectively. The most frequently utilised imaging modality was magnetic resonance imaging (n = 64 and 40). The highest-CNCI articles demonstrated greater variability and distribution across subspecialties, imaging modalities and year of publication when compared to the highest-cited list.Conclusion The use of normalised bibliometric analysis tools may remove bias when evaluating research and better demonstrate the breadth of research activity. Use of these tools may provide a more robust and contemporaneous review of the landscape of research within a field.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding source was utilised within this project.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Nil required.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data is available from lead author upon request.AbbreviationsCNCICategory Normalised Citation IndexWOSWeb of ScienceSCIEScience Citation Index ExpandedESCIEmerging Source Citation IndexMRMagnetic Resonance ER -