Dataset Information

Temporal trend of research related to gun violence from 1981 to 2018 in the United States: a bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to evaluate the variation in gun violence-related research in the US over time to determine if there are meaningful changes in frequency of research at certain time points. Related publications were searched from the Web of Science.

Methods

We searched articles from Web of Science to collect publication data of gun violence research in three disciplines (clinical sciences, life sciences, and social behavior sciences) from 1981 to 2018. The joinpoint regression approach was applied to evaluate the trend of publication ratio. We also adopted the generalized additive mixed model to compare the publication ratio among the three research disciplines.

Results

During the study period, each research discipline had a significant decrease in publication ratios, especially social behavioral sciences from 2001 to 2011, with an annual percentage change?=?-?9.77% (95% CI?=?-?13.45, -?5.93; p-value < .0001). After combining the three research disciplines, the average change of the publication ratio was significantly increased 9.18% (95% CI?=?6.42, 12.01; p-value < .0001) per year from 1981 to 2018. Compared to social behavioral sciences, both clinical sciences and life sciences had a significantly smaller publication ratio.

Conclusions

Gun violence research exhibited a significant downward trend in publications in the early 2000s, which may be attributed at least in part to limited federal funding, but the publication ratio increased since the 2010s. To enhance the amount of peer-reviewed gun violence research so that research-informed gun violence interventions are more likely to succeed, decision-makers should keep supporting quality research.

SUBMITTER: Chien LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7087386 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Temporal trend of research related to gun violence from 1981 to 2018 in the United States: a bibliometric analysis.

Chien Lung-Chang LC Gakh Maxim M Coughenour Courtney C Lin Ro-Ting RT

Injury epidemiology 20200323 1

<h4>Background</h4>We aimed to evaluate the variation in gun violence-related research in the US over time to determine if there are meaningful changes in frequency of research at certain time points. Related publications were searched from the Web of Science.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched articles from Web of Science to collect publication data of gun violence research in three disciplines (clinical sciences, life sciences, and social behavior sciences) from 1981 to 2018. The joinpoint regression ...[more]

PMID: 32200761

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccumulating evidence in the last decade has pointed to the effectiveness of oncolytic virus in the treatment of a variety of cancer types in preclinical or clinical studies, showing high potency and low toxicity compared to conventional treatments. To track this research trend and highlight future directions, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of oncolytic virus research to date.MethodsRelevant studies were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection between January 2000 and December 2018. Data were collected in terms of the number of publications, country, journal of publication, journal scope, author, and keywords or topics. Analysis and visual representation of the data were performed with CiteSpace V.ResultsThe trend in publications related to oncolytic virus showed a dramatic increase, from 10 publications in 2000 to 199 publications in 2018. The United States clearly dominates this field (981 publications, 52.770%), followed by Canada (244, 13.125%) and China (205, 11.027%). The top 15 academic journals account for over one third of the total publications on oncolytic virus research (724, 38.95%). Most of the related papers were published in journals with a focus on biology, medicine, immunology, medicine, molecular biology, and clinical perspectives, as represented by the dual-map overlay. The most highly cited papers were published in journals in the fields of nursing, molecular biology, general biology, genetics, health, and medicine. Over 1300 institutions have focused their attention on oncolytic virus research to date, and cooperation among mainstream institutions is common.ConclusionThe global field of oncolytic virus research has expanded at a rapid pace from 2000 to 2018. There is no doubt that North America currently has the most powerful impact on the field with respect to both productivity and contribution. However, European and some East Asian institutions are also prominent in this field. Overall, this bibliometric study identifies the top 4 hotspots in oncolytic virus research: T-cells, vaccinia virus, dendritic cells, and apoptosis. Thus, further research focuses on these topics may be more helpful to promote the clinical translation of this treatment strategy to bring a benefit to cancer patients in the near future.

Project description:Child maltreatment remains a major health threat globally that requires the understanding of socioeconomic and cultural contexts to craft effective interventions. However, little is known about research agendas globally and the development of knowledge-producing networks in this field of study. This study aims to explore the bibliometric overview on child maltreatment publications to understand their growth from 1916 to 2018. Data from the Web of Science Core Collection were collected in May 2018. Only research articles and reviews written in the English language were included, with no restrictions by publication date. We analyzed publication years, number of papers, journals, authors, keywords and countries, and presented the countries collaboration and co-occurrence keywords analysis. From 1916 to 2018, 47,090 papers (53.0% in 2010?2018) were published in 9442 journals. Child Abuse & Neglect (2576 papers; 5.5%); Children and Youth Services Review (1130 papers; 2.4%) and Pediatrics (793 papers, 1.7%) published the most papers. The most common research areas were Psychology (16,049 papers, 34.1%), Family Studies (8225 papers, 17.5%), and Social Work (7367 papers, 15.6%). Among 192 countries with research publications, the most prolific countries were the United States (26,367 papers), England (4676 papers), Canada (3282 papers) and Australia (2664 papers). We identified 17 authors who had more than 60 scientific items. The most cited papers (with at least 600 citations) were published in 29 journals, headed by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (7 papers) and the Lancet (5 papers). This overview of global research in child maltreatment indicated an increasing trend in this topic, with the world’s leading centers located in the Western countries led by the United States. We called for interdisciplinary research approaches to evaluating and intervening on child maltreatment, with a focus on low-middle income countries (LMICs) settings and specific contexts.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care.DesignBibliometric analysis.SettingUnited Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive.Main outcome measuresVolume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores.Results82,169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher's productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany.ConclusionThis international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the increasing use of osteopathy, a manipulative complementary and alternative medicine therapy, in the general population, its efficacy continues to be debated. In this era of evidence-based practice, no studies have previously reviewed the scientific literature in the field to identify published knowledge, trends and gaps in empirical research. The aims of this bibliometric analysis are to describe characteristics of articles published on the efficacy of osteopathic interventions and to provide an overall portrait of their impacts in the scientific literature.MethodsA bibliometric analysis approach was used. Articles were identified with searches using a combination of relevant MeSH terms and indexing keywords about osteopathy and research designs in MEDLINE and CINAHL databases. The following indicators were extracted: country of primary author, year of publication, journals, impact factor of the journal, number of citations, research design, participants' age group, system/body part addressed, primary outcome, indexing keywords and types of techniques.ResultsA total of 389 articles met the inclusion criteria. The number of empirical studies doubled every 5 years, with the United States, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom being the most productive countries. Twenty-three articles were cited over 100 times. Articles were published in 103 different indexed journals, but more than half (53.7%) of articles were published in one of three osteopathy-focused readership journals. Randomized control trials (n = 145; 37.3%) and case reports (n = 142; 36.5%) were the most common research designs. A total of 187 (48.1%) studies examined the effects of osteopathic interventions using a combination of techniques that belonged to two or all of the classic fields of osteopathic interventions (musculoskeletal, cranial, and visceral).ConclusionThe number of osteopathy empirical studies increased significantly from 1980 to 2014. The productivity appears to be very much in sync with practice development and innovations; however, the articles were mainly published in osteopathic journals targeting a limited, disciplinary-focused readership.

Dataset Information

Temporal trend of research related to gun violence from 1981 to 2018 in the United States: a bibliometric analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Temporal trend of research related to gun violence from 1981 to 2018 in the United States: a bibliometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets