Gouty arthritis (GA), as a multifactorial disease, is characterised by intense pain, active inflammation symptoms, and swollen joints. It has utterly complex pathogenesis, of which the amount of research publications on GA has increased during the last few decades. A bibliometric analysis was carried out to investigate the trends, frontiers, and hot spots in global scientific output in GA research over the last decade. We retrieved the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) of the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) for publications and recorded information published from 2012 to 2021. we carried out the bibliometric analysis and visualisation analysis of the overall distribution of annual outputs, leading countries, active institutions, journals, authors, co-cited references, and keywords with the VOSviewer and CiteSpace. The impact and quality of papers were assessed using a global citation score (GCS). We retrieved 2052 articles and reviews in total. The annual number of publications (Np) related to GA research has increased during the latest decade. China published the most papers, and the USA achieved the highest H-index and number of citations (Nc). The League of European Research Universities (LERU) and Clinical Rheumatology (Clin Rheumatol) are the most productive institutions and periodicals. The total GCS of the paper written by Kottgen, A. in 2013 was 479, ranking the first. The most common keywords were “Gout,” “hyperuricemia,” and “gouty arthritis.” This research revealed that though there was a slight fluctuation in publications related to GA, the Np raised on the whole. China was an enormous creator, and the USA was an influential nation in this domain. The top three contributor authors were Dalbeth, N., Singh, JA., and Choi, HK. There were few investigations on the treatment of GA by Chinese medicine monomer, and the “mechanism,” “pathway”, “nf- kappa-b”, “injury”, “receptor”, and “animal model” were growing research hotspots. Our research illustrated the hotspots of research and development trends in the research field of GA during the last decade. Recognition of the most critical indicators (researchers, countries, institutes, and journals for the release of GA research), hotspots in the research field of GA can be helpful for countries, scholars, and policymakers in this field to understand GA better make decisions.
Objectives. Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the devastating complications of diabetes. It has high mortality and disability rates. The number of research articles on DFUs has increased. This study was designed to explore the global trends and research hotspots of DFUs to benefit researchers in shaping future research directions. Methods. Literatures relating to DFU from 2004 to 2020 were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-expanded) of Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). The current status of DFU research (including publications, journals, the performances of relevant countries, institutions, and authors and the research trends and hotspots of DFU) was analyzed with the WoSCC. VOSviewer v1.6.10.0 was utilised for cocitation, coauthorship, cooccurrence analyses, and bibliographic coupling. Results. A total of 5869 publications on DFUs were retrieved. We performed a longitudinal review of publications over 17 years: 4500 articles and 865 review articles on DFUs published from 2004 to 2020 were analyzed. The total citation was 107,296. The USA ( n = 1866 ), England ( n = 606 ), and China ( n = 599 ) were the three largest contributors. The University of Washington had the greatest number of publications within this time period ( n = 103 ), and it had the most cooperative units and was in the core position in all research institutions, followed by the University of Manchester ( n = 94 ) and the University of Miami ( n = 92 ). Armstrong DG (91/1.69%) and Lavery LA (55/1.19%) should be regarded as scholars who have made outstanding contributions. The top journal with the greatest total link strength was Diabetes Care. Analysis showed that the global research hotspots of DFU focused on lower limb amputation, diabetic foot infection, and treatment and management of DFU. Studies on osteomyelitis, wound therapy and management, multidisciplinary integration and mechanism of DFUs, and its related diseases are the research fronts that should be closely watched in the future. Conclusions. This study revealed the current research status and hotspots in the domain of DFU over the past 17 years, which can help researchers to further pinpoint potential perspectives on hot topics and research frontiers.
ObjectiveThe present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release using a needle knife.MethodsThe author performed percutaneous A1 pulley release in 84 cadaveric hands fixed with 10% formalin. The cadaveric hands were divided into three groups: 28 hands in each group (group U: ultrasound-guided needle knife pushing group, group N: non-ultrasound-guided needle knife pushing group, group T: classical needle knife operation puncture group). Percutaneous A1 pulley release was performed, the soft tissue was dissected layer by layer, and the relevant anatomical data were measured.ResultsThe injured cases were as follows: group U, 29 (20.7%); group N, 36 (25.7%); and group T, 28 (20.0%). There is no significant difference between different tissue injury types in different intervention methods. The missed release cases were as follows: group U, 8 (5.7%); group N, 4 (2.9%); and group T, 13 (9.3%). The percentage of released A1 pulley were as follows: group U, 71.4% ± 30.7%; group N, 66.0% ± 20.3%; and group T, 61.0% ± 30.4%. The percentage of released A1 pulley of the three groups were compared: group U > group N > group T, and there was statistical difference between the three groups. The full release rates of the three groups were compared: group U(31.4%) > group N(15.7%) > group T(13.6%), and there were significant difference in the full release of A1 pulley between group U and group T, group N.ConclusionBased on the cadaver specimen, the length and percentage of released A1 pulley is longer by ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release using a needle-knife. and there was no statistical difference in the injury rate between the three techniques.Type of Study and Clinical RelevanceClinical anatomic study. To test the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release using a needle knife in cadaveric hands, and provide an anatomically based support in clinic.
Background:Trigger finger is thought to be caused by aseptic inflammation of the A1 pulley and subsequent thickening and narrowing of the fibrous sheath. Acupotomy has been an important treatment for trigger finger. But an updated systematic review about this issue has not yet been released. This systematic review protocol is aimed at providing a higher quality method used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupotomy treatment for trigger finger.Methods:The following databases will be searched from the study inception to July 2019: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-Fang Data, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. All English or Chinese randomized controlled trials related to acupotomy for trigger finger will be included. Two reviewers will independently perform the processes of study inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment. The primary outcome will be assessed by improvement of the pain symptoms and finger activity. Secondary outcomes will be assessed through Safety assessment. Meta-analysis will be completed by RevMan V.5.3 software.Results:This systematic review will provide an assessment of the current state of acupotomy for trigger finger, aiming to show the efficacy and safety of treatment.Conclusion:This systematic review will re-evaluate a higher-quality systematic review to obtain a relatively convincing conclusion that finds acupotomy to be a better choice for trigger finger patients.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42018118663
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.