COVID-19 publications in anaesthesiology journals: a bibliometric analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Martinez-Simon A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8654585 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an infodemic about the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 outbreak to build knowledge and develop mitigation strategies. In addition, scientific journals across the world have studied the impact of COVID-19 on trauma and orthopaedics.MethodsA cross-sectional, bibliometric analysis of the literature was undertaken on COVID-19 related articles from three Pubmed and Scopus indexed orthopaedic journals from India, namely, Indian Journal of Orthopaedics(IJO),Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma(JCOT), and Journal of Orthopaedics (JOO), in May 2021. All the article types and study designs were included for this review. The authors, institutions, countries, keywords, and co-authorship mapping were studied.ResultsA total of 112 COVID-19 related documents were retrieved. Period of these publications was from 2nd April 2020 to 31st May 2021. Vaishya R. (n = 16) was the most cited author, and Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals (n = 16) was the most cited research Institution. India led the list of countries in academic publication output. On keyword mapping, telemedicine was the most prominent Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search word.ConclusionThe Indian orthopedic journals have addressed the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic practice in India and aborad whilst continuing to publish knowledge about basic science and clinical orthopaedic research studies. The JCOT has outperformed and become the most leading orthopaedic journal from India during the pandemic. COVID -19 articles have been fast tracked, open accessed and attracted more citations in reduced duration of time compared to non-COVID-19 papers.
| S-EPMC8480149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Objectives Pharmacy practice journals are considered the main player in promoting pharmacy practice research and the pharmacy profession globally. The current study aimed to explore and analyze literature on the COVID-19 pandemic published in pharmacy practice journals. Methods COVID-19 research articles were extracted from 32 pharmacy practice journals indexed in Scopus for the study period from 01 January 2020, up until 31 December 2021 Key findings A total of 581 documents were found with an average of 4.5 authors per article and 4.8 citations per document. The retrieved documents were published in 28 pharmacy practice-related journals with the Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy and the American Journal of Health System Pharmacy journals being the leaders in this field. The major findings of the analysis indicated (1) a limited number of contributing countries with limited author-author interactions and cross country collaboration; (2) specific topics were encountered, mainly hospital pharmacy services, survey studies on knowledge, and pharmacy education; (3) several contributing countries in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia; Egypt, and Jordan contributed to the retrieved documents, and (4) the highly-cited documents discussed issues related to pharmacy services and role of the community pharmacists during the pandemic. Conclusion Research activity on COVID-19 in pharmacy practice journals represents the commitment of researchers and professionals to transform and promote the profession of pharmacy. Research on pharmacy practice and pharmacists in low- and middle-income countries during pandemics needs to be prioritized by scholars and journal editors.
| S-EPMC9494489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBibliometric analysis is important for guiding future research priorities. We evaluated the most relevant scientific research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and older adults, analyzed current hot topics, and identified the 50 most cited publications.MethodsArticles published between December 2019 and March 17, 2021 were identified using the search terms "COVID-19" or "Novel Coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2" or "2019-nCoV" and "geriatrics" or "older adults" or "elderly" appearing in the title, abstract, keywords, or keywords plus. Original research articles, reviews, editorial materials, and letters were included. Information on articles year, journal, title, author, country, affiliation, keywords, document type, and counts of citations was collected. VOSviewer was used to analyze keywords.ResultsA total of 784 publications were included. The most common keywords were "COVID-19" and "older adults," which were strongly related to "social isolation," "dementia," "mortality," and "loneliness." The most active (40.8%) and most cited (1,578) country was the United States. The Journal of the American Geriatric Society had the largest number of publications (22.7%) and citations (947). The most researched (84.0%) and most cited areas were geriatrics-gerontology (2,882). The median number of citations for the most cited 50 articles was 46.8.ConclusionThe results of the bibliometric analysis provided information about the quality and research areas of published studies on COVID-19 and older adults. Social and psychological support, nutrition, vaccines, and telemedicine may be hot research topics for the future.
| S-EPMC8497949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had widespread effects across the globe and continues to affect global public health. This study aims to select and feature highly cited publications on the COVID-19 vaccine. The Web of Science core database was used to extract relevant articles published in recent years. Progress of vaccine studies made in recent two years has mainly focused on the development of different vaccines and the evaluation of their safety and efficacy for population immunity. Clinical trials mainly focusing on the safety and efficacy of diverse vaccines have flourished. Lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine and recombinant adenovirus type-5 (26) vectored SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are most commonly studied. Vaccine application-associated challenges mainly include antibody resistance of new variants and unusual severe complications. The correlation between booster immunizations and reinfection is still in the explored state. Currently, antibody resistance of emerging variants is the main vaccine application-associated challenge and the primary reason for vaccine hesitancy. Effective strategies for reinfection prevention are also urgently needed.
| S-EPMC10413004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe analyzed the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) to understand leading research institutions, collaborations among institutions, major publication venues, key research concepts, and topics covered by pandemic-related research.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive analysis of authors' institutions and relationships, automatic content extraction of key words and phrases from titles and abstracts, and topic modeling and evolution. Data visualization techniques were applied to present the results of the analysis.ResultsWe found that leading research institutions on COVID-19 included the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the US National Institutes of Health, and the University of California. Research studies mostly involved collaboration among different institutions at national and international levels. In addition to bioRxiv, major publication venues included journals such as The BMJ, PLOS One, Journal of Virology, and The Lancet. Key research concepts included the coronavirus, acute respiratory impairments, health care, and social distancing. The ten most popular topics were identified through topic modeling and included human metapneumovirus and livestock, clinical outcomes of severe patients, and risk factors for higher mortality rate.ConclusionData analytics is a powerful approach for quickly processing and understanding large-scale datasets like CORD-19. This approach could help medical librarians, researchers, and the public understand important characteristics of COVID-19 research and could be applied to the analysis of other large datasets.
| S-EPMC8485960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the global epidemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a large number of immunological studies related to COVID-19 have been published in various immunology journals. However, the results from these studies were discrete, and no study summarized the important immunological information about COVID-19 released by these immunology journals. This study aimed to comprehensively summarize the knowledge structure and research hotspots of COVID-19 published in major immunology journals through bibliometrics.MethodsPublications on COVID-19 in major immunology journals were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection. CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R-bibliometrix were comprehensively used for bibliometric and visual analysis.Results1,331 and 5,000 publications of 10 journals with high impact factors and 10 journals with the most papers were included, respectively. The USA, China, England, and Italy made the most significant contributions to these papers. University College London, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Harvard Medical School, University California San Diego, and University of Pennsylvania played a central role in international cooperation in the immunology research field of COVID-19. Yuen Kwok Yung was the most important author in terms of the number of publications and citations, and the H-index. CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES and FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY were the most essential immunology journals. These immunology journals mostly focused on the following topics: "Delta/Omicron variants", "cytokine storm", "neutralization/neutralizing antibody", "T cell", "BNT162b2", "mRNA vaccine", "vaccine effectiveness/safety", and "long COVID".ConclusionThis study systematically uncovered a holistic picture of the current research on COVID-19 published in major immunology journals from the perspective of bibliometrics, which will provide a reference for future research in this field.
| S-EPMC9670819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundJournal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today's research world, influencing where scholars submit their research and where funders distribute their resources. COVID-19, one of the most serious health crises, resulted in an unprecedented surge of publications across all areas of knowledge. An important question is whether COVID-19 affected the gold standard of scholarly assessment.ObjectiveIn this paper, we aimed to comprehensively compare the productivity trends of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature as well as track their evolution and scholarly impact across 3 consecutive calendar years.MethodsWe took as an example 6 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine [Annals], The British Medical Journal [The BMJ], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], The Lancet, Nature Medicine [NatMed], and The New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]) and searched the literature using the Web of Science database for manuscripts published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021. To assess the effect of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature in their scholarly impact, we calculated their annual IFs and percentage changes. Thereafter, we estimated the citation probability of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publications along with their rates of publication and citation by journal.ResultsA significant increase in IF change for manuscripts including COVID-19 published from 2019 to 2020 (P=.002; Annals: 283%; The BMJ: 199%; JAMA: 208%; The Lancet: 392%; NatMed: 111%; and NEJM: 196%) and to 2021 (P=.007; Annals: 41%; The BMJ: 90%; JAMA: 6%; The Lancet: 22%; NatMed: 53%; and NEJM: 72%) was seen, against non-COVID-19 ones. The likelihood of highly cited publications was significantly increased in COVID-19 manuscripts between 2019 and 2021 (Annals: z=3.4, P<.001; The BMJ: z=4.0, P<.001; JAMA: z=3.8, P<.001; The Lancet: z=3.5, P<.001; NatMed: z=5.2, P<.001; and NEJM: z=4.7, P<.001). The publication and citation rates of COVID-19 publications followed a positive trajectory, as opposed to non-COVID-19. The citation rate for COVID-19 publications peaked by the second quarter of 2020 while that of the publication rate approximately a year later.ConclusionsThe rapid surge of COVID-19 publications emphasized the capacity of scientific communities to respond against a global health emergency, yet inflated IFs create ambiguity as benchmark tools for assessing scholarly impact. The immediate implication is a loss in value of and trust in journal IFs as metrics of research and scientific rigor perceived by academia and society. Loss of confidence toward procedures employed by highly reputable publishers may incentivize authors to exploit the publication process by monopolizing their research on COVID-19 and encourage them to publish in journals of predatory behavior.
| S-EPMC9778719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOutdoor air pollution is a major threat to global public health that needs responsible participation of researchers at all levels. Assessing research output is an important step in highlighting national and international contribution and collaboration in a certain field. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze globally-published literature in outdoor air pollution - related respiratory health.MethodOutdoor air pollution documents related to respiratory health were retrieved from Scopus database. The study period was up to 2017. Mapping of author keywords was carried out using VOSviewer 1.6.6.ResultsSearch query yielded 3635 documents with an h-index of 137. There was a dramatic increase in the number of publications in the last decade of the study period. The most frequently encountered author keywords were: air pollution (835 occurrences), asthma (502 occurrences), particulate matter (198 occurrences), and children (203 occurrences). The United States of America ranked first (1082; 29.8%) followed by the United Kingdom (279; 7.7%) and Italy (198; 5.4%). Annual research productivity stratified by income and population size indicated that China ranked first (22.2) followed by the USA (18.8). Analysis of regional distribution of publications indicated that the Mediterranean, African, and South-East Asia regions had the least contribution. Harvard University (92; 2.5%) was the most active institution/organization followed the US Environmental Protection Agency (89; 2.4%). International collaboration was restricted to three regions: Northern America, Europe, and Asia. The top ten preferred journals were in the field of environmental health and respiratory health. Environmental Health Perspective was the most preferred journal for publishing documents in outdoor pollution in relation to respiratory health.ConclusionResearch on the impact of outdoor air pollution on respiratory health had accelerated lately and is receiving a lot of interest. Global research networks that include countries with high level of pollution and limited resources are highly needed to create public opinion in favor of minimizing outdoor air pollution and investing in green technologies.
| S-EPMC5984296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesRheumatology-related diseases remain a significant burden worldwide. However, little is known about the comparative status of rheumatology research between Mainland China (MC) and the world's leading countries. The aim of this study is to compare the quantity and quality of research output in the field of rheumatology that were written by researchers from MC, the USA, the UK, the Netherlands and France.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2017, all articles published in 30 rheumatology journals were identified via Science Citation Index Expanded database. The number of total and annual articles, article types (randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reviews, case reports, clinical trials and meta-analysis), impact factor (IF), citations, h-index and articles in the high-impact journals were collected for quantity and quality comparisons. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analyzed.ResultsFrom 2007 to 2017, there were 53,439 articles published in rheumatology journals, of which researchers from the USA published 13,391 articles, followed by the UK, the Netherlands, France and MC with 6,179, 4,310, 4,066 and 2,898 articles, respectively. Publications from MC represented the ninth, but the number is growing rapidly. For total and average citations, MC still lags behind the other four countries in the study. Similar trends were observed in average IF, h-index and articles in the high-impact journals. In terms of article types, the USA occupies the dominant place, except for meta-analysis. The annual numbers of articles from MC and the USA were positively correlated with gross domestic product (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe USA has played predominant role in rheumatology research for the last 11 years. The annual number of published articles from MC has increased notably from 2007 to 2017. Although MC has made progress in the number of published articles over the past decade, it still lags far behind the highly developed countries in most bibliometric indicators. Thus, the general quality of publications from MC needs further improvement.
| S-EPMC6487180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak highlighted the importance of rapid access to research.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate research communication related to COVID-19, the level of openness of papers, and the main topics of research into this disease.MethodsOpen access (OA) uptake (typologies, license use) and the topic evolution of publications were analyzed from the start of the pandemic (January 1, 2020) until the end of a year of widespread lockdown (March 1, 2021).ResultsThe sample included 95,605 publications; 94.1% were published in an OA form, 44% of which were published as Bronze OA. Among these OA publications, 42% do not have a license, which can limit the number of citations and thus the impact. Using a topic modeling approach, we found that articles in Hybrid and Green OA publications are more focused on patients and their effects, whereas the strategy to combat the pandemic adopted by different countries was the main topic of articles selecting publication via the Gold OA route.ConclusionsAlthough OA scientific production has increased, some weaknesses in OA practice, such as lack of licensing or under-researched topics, still hold back its effective use for further research.
| S-EPMC9531723 | biostudies-literature