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

Yihang Fu, Yuxiang Mao, Shuangyan Jiang, Sheng Luo, Xiaoyun Chen, Wei Xiao
Author Information
  1. Yihang Fu: State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  2. Yuxiang Mao: State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  3. Shuangyan Jiang: State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  4. Sheng Luo: State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  5. Xiaoyun Chen: State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  6. Wei Xiao: State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Abstract

Background: Bibliometric 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 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.
Methods: We 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.
Results: A 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 ( = 236). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses output in most subspecialties had steadily increased with retina/vitreous ( = 986), glaucoma ( = 411) and cornea/external diseases ( = 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  < 0.001).
Conclusion: The 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.

Keywords

Associated Data

Dryad | 10.5061/dryad.fxpnvx0vw

References

  1. BMJ. 1997 Dec 6;315(7121):1533-7 [PMID: 9432252]
  2. BMJ. 2000 Sep 9;321(7261):585-6 [PMID: 10977820]
  3. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021 Aug;44(4):101447 [PMID: 33933352]
  4. Genet Mol Res. 2014 May 09;13(2):3577-85 [PMID: 24854438]
  5. Evid Based Med. 2016 Aug;21(4):125-7 [PMID: 27339128]
  6. Clin Exp Optom. 2021 Jul;104(5):641-643 [PMID: 33689621]
  7. BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700 [PMID: 19622552]
  8. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Aug 26;9:988133 [PMID: 36091704]
  9. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 Jun;96(6):896-9 [PMID: 22446144]
  10. Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 09;1:2 [PMID: 22587842]
  11. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514 [PMID: 27620683]
  12. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Sep;97(39):e12643 [PMID: 30278590]
  13. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021 Oct;105(10):1329-1336 [PMID: 32855165]
  14. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020 Apr 29;9(5): [PMID: 32365471]
  15. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  16. Ocul Surf. 2021 Apr;20:212-214 [PMID: 33757912]
  17. Clin Exp Optom. 2022 Feb 20;:1-7 [PMID: 35188092]
  18. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019 Jul 1;137(7):775-785 [PMID: 31070698]
  19. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022 May;260(5):1779-1788 [PMID: 34999946]
  20. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008 [PMID: 28935701]
  21. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019 Jan 4;70:747-770 [PMID: 30089228]
  22. Front Med. 2012 Mar;6(1):94-9 [PMID: 22460454]
  23. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018 May 1;136(5):514-523 [PMID: 29800249]
  24. Acad Radiol. 2018 Nov;25(11):1481-1490 [PMID: 30442379]
  25. Clin Exp Optom. 2022 May;105(4):372-377 [PMID: 34547211]
  26. Periodontol 2000. 2021 Feb;85(1):237-240 [PMID: 33226679]
  27. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008 Jun;75(6):431-9 [PMID: 18595551]
  28. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 May 3;21(1):144 [PMID: 33941172]
  29. Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Aug;33(8):1066-71 [PMID: 25979301]
  30. Korean J Intern Med. 2018 Mar;33(2):277-283 [PMID: 29277096]
  31. Int Ophthalmol. 2022 Dec;42(12):3963-3976 [PMID: 35799074]
  32. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021 Aug;44(4):101390 [PMID: 33298369]
  33. J Pain Res. 2021 Feb 26;14:561-573 [PMID: 33679140]
  34. Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Feb;9(2):e144-e160 [PMID: 33275949]
  35. Syst Rev. 2022 Jan 8;11(1):8 [PMID: 34998432]
  36. Acad Radiol. 2018 May;25(5):573-593 [PMID: 29371119]
  37. HERD. 2018 Jan;11(1):15-30 [PMID: 29283007]
  38. Biomed Res Int. 2020 Oct 24;2020:5971268 [PMID: 33163536]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SRMAsophthalmologyanalysisguidelineresearchreviewsmeta-analysesproductivecountriesbibliometriccomplianceSingaporejournalsBibliometricspecificSystematicpublicationpublishedtime2020articletwoaverageannualChinaUnitedStatesfrequentlyoutputincreasedpre-registrationpre-registeredsystematicBackground:quantitativemethodappliesmathematicalstatisticaltoolsevaluateinter-relationshipsimpactspublicationsauthorsinstitutionsareasummariesbestavailableevidenceaddressquestioncomprehensivelyliteraturesearchin-depthsynthesisresultsdateseveralstudiessummarizingtrendsspecialtieshowevernoneconductedspecificallypurposestudyestablishscientometriclandscapefieldMethods:retrievedrelevantophthalmologicalcorrespondingparameters2000WebScienceCoreCollectionperformedusingbibliometrixpackagePre-registrationindependentlyassessedinvestigatorsResults:total2660includedgrowthrate2126%countryhighestcitationsperdocumentWongTYalsocitedauthoraffiliationNationalUniversity = 236subspecialtiessteadilyretina/vitreous = 986glaucoma = 411cornea/externaldiseases = 303constantlydominantfieldsRatesdramatically200635%reportedrespectivelyHowevertendedlesscompliednon-ophthalmology< 0001Conclusion:rapidlyincreasingpastdecadeswhereasprolificinfluentialscholarinstitutionRaisingawarenessimplementationstillnecessaryensurequalityespeciallyproductivitytrend

Similar Articles

Cited By