National representation in the spine literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited spine journals

Ding, Fan; Jia, Zhiwei; Liu, Ming

doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4204-7

Cited by 26 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context of rapid economic development, China has played an increasing role in medicine and science in the recent decades (Tong, Wang & Jiang, 2013; Cyranoski, 2004; Ding, Jia & Liu, 2015; Liang et al, 2015; Luo et al, 2015). A similar trend has also been observed with China’s contribution to nursing research (Li et al, 2009; Li, 2014; Kalisch & Kalisch, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific publications in nursing journals from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: a 10-year survey of the literature

Zhang

Wang

Yuan

et al. 2016

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: China has witnessed remarkable progress in scientific performance in recent years. However, the quantity and quality of nursing publications from three major regions (Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) have not been reported. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of scientific research productivity from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the field of nursing. Methods: Articles published in the 110 nursing journals originating from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong between 2005 and 2014 were retrieved from the Web of Science. The total number of articles published, the impact factor, and the citation count were analyzed. Results: There were 2,439 publications between 2005 and 2014 from China, including 438 from Mainland China, 1,506 from Taiwan, and 495 from Hong Kong. There was a significant increase in publications for these three regions (p < 0.05), especially for Mainland China, with a 59.50-fold increase experienced. From 2011, the number of publications from Mainland China exceeded that from Hong Kong. Taiwan had the highest total journal impact factor (2,142.81), followed by Hong Kong (720.39) and Mainland China (583.94). The mean journal impact factor from Hong Kong (1.46) was higher than that from Taiwan (1.42) and Mainland China (1.33). Taiwan had the highest total citation count (8,392), followed by Hong Kong (3,785) and Mainland China (1,493). The mean citation count from Hong Kong (7.65) was higher than that from Taiwan (5.57) and Mainland China (3.41). The Journal of Clinical Nursing was the most popular journal in the three regions. Discussion: Chinese contributions to the field of nursing have significantly increased in the past ten years, particularly from Mainland China. Taiwan is the most productive region in China. Hong Kong had the highest-quality research output, according to mean journal impact factor and mean citation count.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific publications in nursing journals from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: a 10-year survey of the literature

Zhang

Wang

Yuan

et al. 2016

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This might be due to dominance of different medical subspecialties in different countries, as we observed in China, orthopedic surgeons performed most of the spine surgeries in clinical practice. In summary, the various geographic distributions of research activities were not surprising, because of differences in economic support, healthcare systems, funding sources and scientific research programs in different countries (8). However, the imbalanced ranking of research quantity and citations for some countries should be noted.…”

Section: A B C Dmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Based on the categories of World Bank, we also calculated the proportion of articles that was attributed to high income, upper middle income, lower middle income, and low income countries. This categorization in terms of GDP per capita includes high income, $12746 or more; upper middle income, $4126 to $12745; lower middle income, $1046 to $4125; and low income, $1045 or less (8). Moreover, the research productivity of different countries was evaluated in relation to population size.…”

Section: Bibliometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thanks to powerful electronic search tools, informative bibliometric analyses are currently available to us (18). Bibliometrics, a mature method in information science, has been applied vastly in the medical field and its subspecialties (8,9,19,24). To our knowledge, bibliometric studies analyzing time trends and geographic distributions of published articles concerning spine fusion have not been reported yet.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research activities of spinal fusion in various subspecialties by different surgeons: a bibliometric study

Feng

Ping²,

Deng³

et al. 2018

Turkish Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: To conduct a scientometric assessment of the research activities of spinal fusion in various subspecialties carried out by different surgeons. MATERIAL and METHODS: All articles regarding spinal fusion research on Web of Science from the year 1994 to 2015 were identified and analyzed in the following aspects: year of publication, publication journal, number of times cited, Hirsch index (H-index), spine surgeon specialty, and country/territory. RESULTS: A total of 15060 articles were identified, and the research productivity of spinal fusion has grown steadily over the last two decades. The average research productivity of spinal fusion each year was 109.09 ± 23.26 articles for cervical spine, 90.09 ± 52.56 articles for thoracic spine, and 304.91 ± 181.63 articles for lumbar. The research productivity of spinal fusion by neurosurgeons was 9474 articles published, while the orthopedic surgeons published 8263 articles. The average number of citations for spinal fusion articles was 19.61 times for neurosurgeons, and 20.36 times for orthopedic surgeons. In most countries neurosurgoens published more spinal fusion articles than orthopedic surgeons or at least the same amount, but orthopedic surgeons in China and Germany published far more spinal fusion articles (>100) than neurosurgeons. The United States published the greatest number of articles (6819/15060, 45.28%), followed by China (1280/15060, 8.50%) and Germany (1252/15060, 8.31%), and had the highest total citations (164378) and H-index (144). CONCLUSION: Neurosurgeons tend to publish more articles regarding spinal fusion, but orthopedic surgeons seem to have higher citations. North America, West Europe and East Asia were the most productive regions in spinal fusion research, and the United States made the most academic contributions to this area.

show abstract

“…Biobibliometric analysis has been performed in various medical fields, such as stem cell (Cantos-Mateos et al, 2012;Ho, Chiu, Tseng, & Chiu, 2003), spine (Ding, Jia, & Liu, 2016), cardiovascular disease (Al-Kindi et al, 2015;Huffman et al, 2013;Ugolini et al, 2013), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; Gu et al, 2015), rheumatism (Cheng & Zhang, 2013), diabetes (Krishnamoorthy, Ramakrishnan, & Devi, 2009;Sweileh, Sa'ed, Al-Jabi, & Sawalha, 2014), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS; Rodrigues et al, 2000), small cell lung cancer (SCLC; Ho et al, 2013), and Alzheimer's disease (AD; Chen et al, 2014). Li et al (2008) explained exponentially growing PD trends, between 1991 and 2006, based on the WoS database, including productivity and international collaboration by analyzing citations and author-provided keywords.…”

Section: Traditional Bibliometric Network Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of bibliometric content networks by tomographic content analysis: An application to Parkinson's disease

Lee

Kim

et al. 2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand the current state of a discipline and to discover new knowledge of a certain theme, one builds bibliometric content networks based on the present knowledge entities. However, such networks can vary according to the collection of data sets relevant to the theme by querying knowledge entities. In this study we classify three different bibliometric content networks. The primary bibliometric network is based on knowledge entities relevant to a keyword of the theme, the secondary network is based on entities associated with the lower concepts of the keyword, and the tertiary network is based on entities influenced by the theme. To explore the content and properties of these networks, we propose a tomographic content analysis that takes a slice‐and‐dice approach to analyzing the networks. Our findings indicate that the primary network is best suited to understanding the current knowledge on a certain topic, whereas the secondary network is good at discovering new knowledge across fields associated with the topic, and the tertiary network is appropriate for outlining the current knowledge of the topic and relevant studies.

show abstract

National representation in the spine literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited spine journals

Cited by 26 publications

References 16 publications

Scientific publications in nursing journals from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: a 10-year survey of the literature

Scientific publications in nursing journals from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: a 10-year survey of the literature

Research activities of spinal fusion in various subspecialties by different surgeons: a bibliometric study

Comparative evaluation of bibliometric content networks by tomographic content analysis: An application to Parkinson's disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About