arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Trends in use of the new MeSH term “overdiagnosis”: A bibliometric review

Emma Grundtvig Gram et al.

Health Information and Libraries Journal2025https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.70000review
AJG 2
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

Our review provides insights into the current state of the overdiagnosis literature, emphasising prevalent themes and areas for further research, and improvements in MeSH indexing accuracy. Residual conceptual ambiguity surrounding overdiagnosis terminology and indexing practices may explain discrepancies in MeSH categorisation and definition adherence.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.70000

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{emma2025,
  title        = {{Trends in use of the new MeSH term “overdiagnosis”: A bibliometric review}},
  author       = {Emma Grundtvig Gram et al.},
  journal      = {Health Information and Libraries Journal},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.70000},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Trends in use of the new MeSH term “overdiagnosis”: A bibliometric review

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.