Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified?

The Lancet(1998)10.1016/s0140-6736(98)22034-4Source: DataRank Database

Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified? is a research paper published in The Lancet (1998). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 4.3. It has been cited 76 times, with 62 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 49/100.

N/A

4.3DataRank · unranked

4.3

76 citations · base score 4.3

Cite:

datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

›Data sources & pipeline

Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring

Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)

Findable (1/2)

Has DOI

Accessible (0/2)

Interoperable (0/2)

Reusable (0/3)

FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

49FAIR score

F Findable

100

A Accessible

I Interoperable

R Reusable

Top 56% by FAIRdeterministic

Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →

DataRank Breakdown

Base Score 15%Citation Network 85%

Base Score Contribution

0.652

From this paper's citation signal

Citation Network Contribution

3.6

From 53 citing papers with measurable signal

Learn more about DataRank methodology →

Top 5 citers driving the network score

Ranked by citation count — the same ordering the engine uses when summing log1p(C_q) over citers.

Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough
The Lancet1998667 citationsDataRank 0.976
Meta-Analysis of the Immunogenicity and Tolerability of Pandemic Influenza A 2009 (H1N1) Vaccines
PLoS ONE201183 citationsDataRank 0.665
The Geometric Increase in Meta-Analyses from China in the Genomic Era
PLoS ONE201368 citationsDataRank 4.4Top 29%
Pooling Research Results: Benefits and Limitations of Meta-Analysis
The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement199956 citationsDataRank 0.606
The role of meta-analyses and umbrella reviews in assessing the harms of psychotropic medications: beyond qualitative synthesis
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences201846 citationsDataRank 2.1

Why this DataRank?

DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 15% comes from its base citations and 85% from the citation network (53 citing papers contributed measurable signal).

Base score B(p): log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
Network N(p): Σ over citers of log1p(C_q) ÷ max(outdegree_q, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
Damping factor d = 0.85: DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
Self-citations excluded: Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

Read the full methodology →

Click a node to highlight its connections. Use scroll to zoom. Drag to pan.

Node colors:CenterData PaperData + Open AccessNon-dataSelected & links| Node size = percentile rank