Dataset Information

Trends in the scientific literature on atypical antipsychotic drugs in the United Kingdom: a bibliometric study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

A bibliometric study was undertaken of peer-reviewed publications on atypical antipsychotic drugs (AADs) from the United Kingdom and the findings are presented herein.

Methods

We selected the documents from the Scopus database. We applied several production and dispersion bibliometric indicators, including Price's law on the growth of the scientific literature, and Bradford's law. We also calculated a so-called 'participation index' across different countries. The bibliometric data were thereafter correlated with social and health data from the UK, including total per capita expenditure on health and gross domestic expenditure.

Results

A total of 4156 original manuscripts were published within the timeframe 1967-2015. Our results are in accord with Price's law, with scientific output demonstrating exponential growth (r = 0.9227, as against an r = 0.8766 after adjustment). The drugs most widely evaluated were clozapine (465 documents), olanzapine (263) and risperidone (248). Stratification into Bradford zones produced a nucleus represented by the Journal of Psychopharmacology (168 articles) and British Journal of Psychiatry (159 articles). A total of 1250 different journals were evaluated.

Conclusions

Publications on AADs in the UK have shown exponential growth across the studied period, which is in line with the progressively burgeoning novel AAD releases. No evidence of a saturation point was observed.

SUBMITTER: Lopez-Munoz F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6378637 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trends in the scientific literature on atypical antipsychotic drugs in the United Kingdom: a bibliometric study.

López-Muñoz Francisco F Tracy Derek K DK Povedano-Montero F Javier FJ Breedvelt Josefien J García-Pacios Javier J Fernández-Martín Mª Poveda MP Rubio Gabriel G Álamo Cecilio C

Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology 20190214

<h4>Objective</h4>A bibliometric study was undertaken of peer-reviewed publications on atypical antipsychotic drugs (AADs) from the United Kingdom and the findings are presented herein.<h4>Methods</h4>We selected the documents from the Scopus database. We applied several production and dispersion bibliometric indicators, including Price's law on the growth of the scientific literature, and Bradford's law. We also calculated a so-called 'participation index' across different countries. The biblio ...[more]

PMID: 30800284

Similar Datasets

Project description:The beliefs that antipsychotic drugs (APDs) are 1) effective only to treat delusions and hallucinations (positive symptoms), 2) that typical and atypical APDs differ only in ability to cause extrapyramidal side effects, and 3) that their efficacy as antipsychotics is due solely to their dopamine D2 receptor blockade are outmoded concepts that prevent clinicians from achieving optimal clinical results when prescribing an APD. Atypical APDs are often more effective than typical APDs in treating negative symptoms, cognitive impairment, and mood symptoms as well as reducing the risk for suicide and decreasing aggression. This applies not only to those diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder but also to bipolar disorder, major depression, and other psychiatric diagnoses. The greater advantage of an atypical APD is not evident in all patients for every atypical APD due, in part, to individual differences in genetic and epigenetic endowment and differences in the pharmacology of the atypical APDs, their mode of action being far more complex than that of the typical APDs. A common misconception is that among the atypical APDs, only clozapine is effective for reducing psychosis in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Aripiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, and risperidone also can be more effective than typical APDs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia; clozapine is uniquely indicated for reducing the risk for suicide. The ability of the atypical APDs to improve cognition and negative symptoms in some patients together with lower propensity to cause tardive dyskinesia (an underappreciated advantage) leads to better overall outcomes. These advantages of the atypical APDs in efficacy and safety are due, in part, to initiation of synaptic plasticity via direct and indirect effects of the atypical APDs on a variety of proteins, especially G proteins, and release of neurotrophins (e.g., brain-derived neurotrophic factor). The typical APDs beneficial effects on psychosis are mainly the result of D2 receptor blockade, which can be associated with serious side effects and lack of tolerability.

Project description:ObjectivesThe rapid production of a large volume of literature during the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak created a substantial burden for clinicians and scientists. Therefore, this manuscript aims to identify and describe the scientific literature addressing COVID-19 from a dental research perspective, in terms of the manuscript origin, research domain, study type, and level of evidence (LoE).Materials and methodsData were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. A descriptive analysis of bibliographic data, collaboration network, and keyword co-occurrence analysis were performed. Articles were further classified according to the field of interest, main research question, type of study, and LoE.ResultsThe present study identified 296 dental scientific COVID-19 original papers, published in 89 journals, and co-authored by 1331 individuals affiliated with 429 institutions from 53 countries. Although 81.4% were single-country papers, extensive collaboration among the institutions of single countries (Italian, British, and Brazilian institutions) was observed. The main research areas were as follows: the potential use of saliva and other oral fluids as promising samples for COVID-19 testing, dental education, and guidelines for the prevention of COVID-19 transmission in dental practice. The majority of articles were narrative reviews, cross-sectional studies, and short communications. The overall LoE in the analyzed dental literature was low, with only two systematic reviews with the highest LoE I.ConclusionThe dental literature on the COVID-19 pandemic does not provide data relevant to the evidence-based decision-making process. Future studies with a high LoE are essential to gain precise knowledge on COVID-19 infection within the various fields of Dentistry.Clinical relevanceThe published dental literature on COVID-19 consists principally of articles with a low level of scientific evidence which do not provide sufficient reliable high-quality evidence that is essential for decision making in clinical dental practice.

Project description:Highlights 5321 articles are examined to study the literature on remdesivir research for the last six years. We use Scopus database to collect bibliographic material and provide a range of bibliometric indicators including the number of citations, publications, and authors. The analysis shows the highest influential articles and the most productive authors and their collaboration networks. The analysis shows which countries and institutions are leading research and the largest publishers. Co-word analysis was used to make a more comprehensive analysis of the development of the remdesivir research. Abstract In response to global efforts to control and exterminate infectious diseases, this study aims to provide insight into the productivity of remdesivir research and highlight future directions. To achieve this, there is a need to summarize and curate evidence from the literature. As a result, this study carried out comprehensive scientific research to detect trends in published articles related to remdesivir using a bibliometric analysis. Keywords associated with remdesivir were used to access pertinent published articles using the Scopus database. A total of 5321 research documents were retrieved, primarily as novel research articles (n = 2440; 46%). The number of publications increased exponentially from 2020 up to the present. The papers published by the top 12 institutions focusing on remdesivir accounted for 25.69% of the overall number of articles. The USA ranked as the most productive country, with 906 documents (37.1%), equivalent to one-third of the global publications in this field. The most productive institution was Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, in the USA (103 publications). The New England Journal of Medicine was the most cited, with an h-index of 13. The publication of research on remdesivir has gained momentum in the past year. The importance of remdesivir suggests that it needs continued research to help global health organizations detect areas requiring instant action to implement suitable measures. Furthermore, this study offers evolving hotspots and valuable insights into the scientific advances in this field and provides scaling-up analysis and evidence diffusion on remdesivir.

Dataset Information

Trends in the scientific literature on atypical antipsychotic drugs in the United Kingdom: a bibliometric study.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Trends in the scientific literature on atypical antipsychotic drugs in the United Kingdom: a bibliometric study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure