Citation Impact and Public Attention Analysis of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Research in the Urological Literature

Objective: To determine whether the most cited and the most publicly discussed benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) literature describe the same body of work, and whether clinicians and patients read different evidence. Methods: Four Boolean Web of Science searches and four matched Altmetric Explorer searches were run in February 2024, restricted to literature indexed with urologic terminology, and screened in duplicate. Two arms were assembled: the 50 most-cited articles (citation census May 2024) and the 50 with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores. Funding source and intervention focus were hand-coded from the full text of all 100 articles; open-access status came from Unpaywall. Arms were compared with Mann-Whitney U and Fisher exact tests Results: Eight of 50 articles (16%) appeared in both arms. Citation selected articles were older (median 2008 versus 2018, p<0.001), more often randomized trials (58% versus 22%, p<0.001), and more often published in urology-specific journals (96% versus 66%, p<0.001). Industry funded 50% versus 18% of articles (p=0.001) and non-industry sources 8% versus 36% (p=0.001). Only 10% of citation-selected articles were open access versus 56% (p<0.001). Attention data were recoverable for only 13 citation-selected articles (median score 9 versus 17). The two arms were cited in the 2026 AUA BPH Guideline at indistinguishable rates (22% versus 20%, p=1.00). Conclusions: These are largely distinct bodies of work, separated most decisively by whether they can be read without a subscription, yet both inform guideline development equally. Patients arrive with evidence systematically different from, and no less guideline-relevant than, that underpinning their urologist's training.