Global Research Trends on Infertility and Psychology From the Past Two Decades: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the global scientific output of research on infertility and psychology; explore the current status and trends in this field through the cooperation of authors, countries, and institutions; shed light on the direction of clinical infertility research in the future, and provide inspiration for targeted diagnosis and treatment of infertility.MethodsResearch publications on infertility and psychology from the past two decades were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Bibliometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer software and the bibliometrix R package. Network maps were generated to evaluate the collaborations between different authors, countries, institutions, and keywords.ResultsA total of 151 articles related to the study of infertility and psychology were identified. We observed a gradual increase in the number of publications from 2001 to 2021, and the trend has been relatively stable in the past eight years. Human Reproduction (England), as the leading journal publishing the most papers (29 articles), was cited in the most journals (1208 times). Boivin J was the most prolific author (16 articles), with the largest number of citations (890 times) and the highest h-index (14) during the past decades. Boivin J was also the leader with the highest publication frequency and more active cooperation with other top authors. The United Kingdom (34 papers) and Cardiff University (25 articles) contributed the most publications and were the leading contributors in this field. Active cooperation between countries and between institutions was observed, and analyses of articles and references were also shown. The main hot topics included matters related to women (39 times), in-vitro salt (31 times), infertility (30 times), couples (25 times), and impact (24 times).ConclusionOur study results provide a comprehensive overview of the development of scientific literature, allowing relevant authors and research teams to recognize the current research status in this field. At the same time, infertility and psychology may soon become hotspots and should be closely monitored.

Predictors and incidence of depression and anxiety in women undergoing infertility treatment: A cross-sectional study

“…Previous studies have shown that besides being unable to conceive naturally, infertility is also related to various physical and mental diseases such as anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive symptoms and sleep disorder [ 8 , 9 ]. In the past years, infertility was considered as a shameful disease, and society and family might give individuals and couples a greater psychological burden which greatly affected the physical and mental health of infertile patients [ 10 ]. For infertile patients, first went to outpatient consultation or chose assisted reproductive technology treatment might cause anxiety [ 11 ].…”

Analyzing author collaborations by developing a follower-leader clustering algorithm and identifying top co-authoring countries: Cluster analysis

“…In light of bibliometrics following meta-analysis, [20,21] its exponential growth in publication in recent years, [22,23] and the integration of cluster naming as a routine analysis in CiteSpace [13] and other bibliometric software (e.g., VOSviewer, [14] or Bibexcel [15] ), the use of R language in visualizing bibliometrics [24][25][26][27][28] has become more common. Drawing chord diagrams [25,29] or similar graphics using R language presents another challenge, which should be overcome immediately.…”

Using chord diagrams to explore article themes in 100 top-cited articles citing Hirsch’s h-index since 2005: A bibliometric analysis

“…[39] The chord diagram uses 2 types of datasets: 1-mode data (within 1 entity, e.g., a countries-to-countries relationship) and 2-mode data (between entities, e.g., a countries-to-themes relationship). A variety of bibliographical studies have been conducted using 1-mode data [40][41][42][43] (e.g., author collaboration based on country of origin). However, 2-mode data have never been observed in the field of bibliometrics before.…”