The Highly Cited Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Articles of Cardiac And Cardiovascular Systems: A Scientometric Study Based on Web of Science
Journal of Medical Library and Information Science,
Vol. 4 (2023),
16 January 2023
,
Page 1-10
https://doi.org/10.22037/jmlis.v4i.41601
Abstract
Introduction: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been placed at the summit of the evidence pyramid in the evidence-based medicine paradigm. Scientometric investigation can provide useful insight into the field's scholarly communications. Therefore, this study is an attempt to scientometric study of the highly cited systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles of cardiac and cardiovascular systems category based on Web of Science.
Methods: The study focused on those highly cited articles that were retrieved from Web of Science between July 20th and July 27th, 2019. After multiple phases of screening the retrieved articles, 150 articles formed the current research population. A number of articles in systematic review and meta-analysis, the publication trend, the status of authors' countries, authors’ affiliation, and the publication sources of the articles were examined.
Results: Meta-analysis articles account for 52% of the research population. The largest share of the highly cited papers were for 2018. The results showed 61.3% of the studies conducted by international cooperation. The largest number of the studies have been conducted by researchers of USA, England, Netherland and Canada. The largest number of the articles published in American College of Cardiology, and European Heart Journal. The majority of the highly cited articles (79.33%) published in Q1 journals.
Conclusion: The publication of the highly cited articles has benefited greatly from international collaboration. Researchers from of the United States, the Netherlands, England and Canada significantly contributed to the articles' production. The highly cited papers have been published in the most prestigious journals.
- Scientometric study; Highly cited papers; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
How to Cite
References
2. Goto M, Schweizer ML, Vaughan-Sarrazin MS, Perencevich EN, Livorsi DJ, Diekema DJ, et al. Association of Evidence-Based Care Processes With Mortality in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia at Veterans Health Administration Hospitals, 2003-2014. JAMA Intern Med [Internet]. 2017 Oct 1;177(10):1489–97. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28873140
3. Emparanza JI, Cabello JB, Burls AJE. Does evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes? An analysis of a natural experiment in a Spanish hospital. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Dec;21(6):1059–65.
4. Prasad K. Fundamentals of evidence based medicine. Springer; 2013.
5. Rada G. Why is research evidence better than expert opinion alone? [Internet]. BMJ Best Practice. 2019. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/discuss-ebm/what-is-the-best-evidence-and-how-to-find-it/
6. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence (March 2009) — Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), University of Oxford [Internet]. University of Oxford. 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 11]. Available from: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009
7. Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016 Aug;21(4):125–7.
8. Moed HF. Applied evaluative informetrics. Springer; 2017.
9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.
10. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.
11. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: Principles for applying the users’ guides to patient care. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;284(10):1290–6.
12. Impellizzeri FM, Bizzini M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: a primer. Int J Sports Phys Ther [Internet]. 2012 Oct;7(5):493–503. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23091781
13. Garg AX, Hackam D, Tonelli M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: When one study is just not enough. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(1):253–60.
14. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet [Internet]. 2017;390(10092):415–23. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673616315926
15. Eastern Illinois University. Why Is Evidence-Based Practice In Nursing So Important? No Title [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://learnonline.eiu.edu/articles/rnbsn/evidence-based-practice-important.aspx
16. Urra Medina E, Barría Pailaquilén RM. Systematic review and its relationship with evidence-based practice in health. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2010;18(4):824–31.
17. Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. J Fam Med Prim care. 2013 Jan;2(1):9–14.
18. Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol [Internet]. 2018/04/02. 2018 Apr;71(2):103–12. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29619782
19. Zhang Y, Huang J, Du L. The top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses in tuberculosis research: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(6).
20. Gogos C, Kodonas K, Fardi A, Economides N. Top 100 cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dentistry. Acta Odontol Scand. 2020;78(2):87–97.
21. Khan MS, Usman MS, Fatima K, Hashmani N, Siddiqi TJ, Riaz H, et al. Characteristics of highly cited articles in interventional cardiology. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120(11):2100–9.
22. Liao J, Wang J, Liu Y, Li J, He Q, Jiang W, et al. The most cited articles in coronary heart disease: A bibliometric analysis between 1970 and 2015. Int J Cardiol. 2016;222:1049–52.
23. Khan MS, Ullah W, Riaz I Bin, Bhulani N, Manning WJ, Tridandapani S, et al. Top 100 cited articles in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a bibliometric analysis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;18(1):1–6.
24. Shuaib W, Khan MS, Shahid H, Valdes EA, Alweis R. Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited cardiovascular articles. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(7):972–81.
25. Kantek F, Yesilbas H. Conflict in nursing studies: A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited papers. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(10):2531–46.
26. Vishwanathan K, Kambhampati SBS, Vaishya R. Top 100 cited articles on diabetes mellitus and Covid-19: A bibliometric analysis. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev. 2021;
27. Shahid I, Motiani V, Siddiqi TJ, Usman MS, Kumar J, Hussain A, et al. Characteristics of highly cited articles in heart failure: A bibliometric analysis. Future Cardiol. 2020;16(3):189–97.
- Abstract Viewed: 175 times
- e38 (PDF) Downloaded: 163 times