IntroductionBisphenol A is highly debated and studied in relation to a variety of health outcomes. This large variation in the literature makes BPA a topic that is prone to selective use of literature, in order to underpin one’s own findings and opinion. Over time, selective use of literature, by means of citations, can lead to a skewed knowledge development and a biased scientific consensus. In this study, we assess which factors drive citation and whether this results in the overrepresentation of harmful health effects of BPA.MethodsA citation network analysis was performed to test various determinants of citation. A systematic search identified all relevant publications on the human health effect of BPA. Data were extracted on potential determinants of selective citation, such as study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, authority of the author, self-citation, and funding source. We applied random effect logistic regression to assess whether these determinants influence the likelihood of citation.ResultsOne hundred sixty-nine publications on BPA were identified, with 12,432 potential citation pathways of which 808 citations occurred. The network consisted of 63 cross-sectional studies, 34 cohort studies, 29 case-control studies, 35 narrative reviews, and 8 systematic reviews. Positive studies have a 1.5 times greater chance of being cited compared to negative studies. Additionally, the authority of the author and self-citation are consistently found to be positively associated with the likelihood of being cited. Overall, the network seems to be highly influenced by two highly cited publications, whereas 60 out of 169 publications received no citations.ConclusionIn the literature on BPA, citation is mostly driven by positive study outcome and author-related factors, such as high authority within the network. Interpreting the impact of these factors and the big influence of a few highly cited publications, it can be questioned to which extent the knowledge development in human literature on BPA is actually evidence-based.

中文翻译：

---

关于双酚 A 对人类健康影响的科学文献中的选择性引用

引言双酚 A 与各种健康结果相关的问题备受争议和研究。文献中的这种巨大差异使 BPA 成为一个倾向于选择性使用文献的主题，以支持自己的发现和观点。随着时间的推移，通过引用选择性地使用文献可能会导致知识发展出现偏差和科学共识存在偏见。在这项研究中，我们评估了哪些因素推动了引用，以及这是否导致 BPA 对健康的有害影响的过度表现。方法进行了引用网络分析以测试引用的各种决定因素。系统搜索确定了所有关于 BPA 对人类健康影响的相关出版物。数据提取了选择性引用的潜在决定因素，例如研究结果、研究设计、样本量、期刊影响因子、作者的权威、自引和资金来源。我们应用随机效应逻辑回归来评估这些决定因素是否影响被引用的可能性。结果确定了 169 篇关于 BPA 的出版物，有 12,432 条潜在的引用途径，其中 808 次被引用。该网络由 63 个横断面研究、34 个队列研究、29 个病例对照研究、35 个叙述性综述和 8 个系统性综述组成。与消极研究相比，积极研究被引用的机会要高 1.5 倍。此外，作者的权威性和自引始终被发现与被引用的可能性呈正相关。总体而言，该网络似乎受到两篇高被引出版物的高度影响，而 169 篇出版物中有 60 篇没有被引用。结论在关于 BPA 的文献中，引用主要是由积极的研究成果和作者相关因素驱动的，例如网络内的高权威。解读这些因素的影响和少数高被引出版物的巨大影响，可以质疑人类文献中关于 BPA 的知识发展在多大程度上实际上是基于证据的。