A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology

Abstract

BackgroundBibliometric analysis is a quantitative method which applies mathematical and statistical tools to evaluate the inter-relationships and impacts of publications, authors, institutions and countries in a specific research area. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are summaries of the best available evidence to address a specific research question via comprehensively literature search, in-depth analysis and synthesis of results. To date, there have been several studies summarizing the publication trends of SRMAs in research specialties, however, none has conducted specifically in ophthalmology. The purpose of this study is to establish the scientometric landscape of SRMAs published in the field of ophthalmology over time.MethodsWe retrieved relevant ophthalmological SRMAs and the corresponding bibliometric parameters during 2000 to 2020 from Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric analysis was performed using bibliometrix package. Pre-registration and guideline compliance of each article was independently assessed by two investigators.ResultsA total of 2,660 SRMAs were included, and the average annual growth rate was 21.26%. China and the United States were the most productive countries, while Singapore was the country with the highest average citations per document. Wong TY was not only the most productive, but also the most frequently cited author. The most productive affiliation was National University of Singapore (n = 236). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses output in most subspecialties had steadily increased with retina/vitreous (n = 986), glaucoma (n = 411) and cornea/external diseases (n = 303) constantly as the most dominant fields. Rates of pre-registration and guideline compliance had dramatically increased over time, with 20.0 and 63.5% of article being pre-registered and reported guideline in 2020, respectively. However, SRMAs published on ophthalmology journals tended to be less frequently pre-registered and guideline complied than those on non-ophthalmology journals (both p < 0.001).ConclusionThe annual output of SRMAs has been rapidly increasing over the past two decades. China and the United States were the most productive countries, whereas Singapore has the most prolific and influential scholar and institution. Raising awareness and implementation of SRMAs pre-registration and guideline compliance is still necessary to ensure quality, especially for ophthalmology journals.

Exploring Trends in Innovation within Digital Economy Research: A Scientometric Analysis

“…Scientometric analysis can offer data-driven insights into trends, significant authors, research subjects, and new publication trends that align with the research questions. It provides a thorough, data-driven assessment of the field's development and is exceptionally proficient at predicting upcoming research trends (Rojas-Sánchez et al 2023;Fu et al 2023).…”

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Treat Neuropathic Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…Based on the challenges involved in neuropathic pain management and the putative role of TMS, we performed an analysis of the literature using a bibliometric approach. This approach has been used recently to provide a general overview of the trend of publication in a certain field of research and has considerable advantages over narrative reviews, namely its higher objectivity and intuitive analysis [ 16 ]. Interestingly, a group of authors recently carried out a bibliometric analysis that aimed to provide a bibliometric perspective regarding articles on pain and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) [ 17 ].…”

Managing depression with complementary and alternative medicine therapies: a scientometric analysis and visualization of research activities

“…The scientometric analysis is a powerful quantitative approach to analyze the distribution structure, quantitative relationship and change rules of documents, using mathematics, statistics and other estimation and measurement techniques ( 26 ). Compared with a traditional narrative review by experts, which usually subjectively focus on the progress in a specific research field, scientometric analysis is advantageous in objectively, comprehensively, and quantitatively summarizing the whole topic based on the information best available ( 27 , 28 ). Featured by comprehensive literature search and critical assessment, a systematic review is more rigorous and may provide less biased evidence than a narrative review, and it can be either qualitative or quantitative (meta-analysis) ( 29 , 30 ).…”

“…A scoping review is designed to determine the type and scope of research evidence, whereas scientometric analysis gives a valuable overview of a field’s national and worldwide contributions to literature ( 31 ) by both summarizing historical research achievements and predicting future research trends ( 25 ). More importantly, unlike literature reviews, the results of scientometric analysis are intuitive and accessible through being displayed with visualization techniques ( 27 ). Such advantages facilitate scholars to gain a one-stop overview, identify knowledge gaps, and explore the intellectual structure of a specific domain ( 27 ).…”

“…More importantly, unlike literature reviews, the results of scientometric analysis are intuitive and accessible through being displayed with visualization techniques ( 27 ). Such advantages facilitate scholars to gain a one-stop overview, identify knowledge gaps, and explore the intellectual structure of a specific domain ( 27 ). All of these strengths scientometric analysis immensely popular in academic circles in recent years ( 25 ).…”