Global Research on Neuropathic Pain Rehabilitation over the Last 20 Years

Abstract

Background. Neuropathic pain has long been a very popular and productive field of clinical research. Neuropathic pain is difficult to cure radically because of its complicated etiology and uncertain pathogenesis. As pain worsens and persists, pain recovery techniques become more important, and medication alone is insufficient. No summary of bibliometric studies on neuropathic pain rehabilitation is yet available. The purpose of the present study is to analyze in a systematic manner the trends of neuropathic pain rehabilitation research over the period of 2000–2019. Methods. Studies related to neuropathic pain rehabilitation and published between January 2000 and December 2019 were obtained from the Science Citation Index-Expanded of Web of Science. No restrictions on language, literature type, or species were established. CiteSpace V and Microsoft Excel were used to capture basic information and highlights in the field. Results. Linear regression analysis showed that the number of publications on neuropathic pain rehabilitation significantly increased over time ( P < 0.001 ). The United States showed absolute strength in terms of number of papers published, influence, and cooperation with other countries. Based on the subject categories of the Web of Science, “Rehabilitation” had the highest number of published papers (446), the highest number of citations (10,954), and the highest number of open-access papers (151); moreover, this category and “Clinical Neurology” had the same H -index (i.e., 52). “Randomized Controlled Trials” revealed the largest cluster in the cocitation map of references. The latest burst keywords included “Exercise” (2014–2019), “Functional Recovery” (2015–2019), and “Questionnaire” (2015–2019). Conclusion. This study provides valuable information for neuropathic pain rehabilitation researchers seeking fresh viewpoints related to collaborators, cooperative institutions, and popular topics in this field. Some new research trends are also highlighted.

Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls

“…Although this anomaly may not have serious consequences on the overall message of a study, such imprecision may introduce bias in the quantitative evaluation and consequently in its interpretation. (3) Some papers using world map visualization tools in which a color scale is used to match each country with the number of pain publications indicated, produced some discrepancies between the numbers in the map and the numbers in the text; see for example (79,82,103,111,113,114). Additionally, in the world maps of several studies, some countries are overlooked and hence, not displayed (82, 103,116).…”