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 No. 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, specifically in Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems. Scientometric investigation can provide useful insight into the field's scholarly communications. Therefore, this study is an attempt at to scientometric study of the highly cited systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles of cardiac and cardiovascular systems category based on the Web of Science (WoS).
Methods: This scientometric study focused on highly cited articles retrieved from the WoS between July 20 and July 27, 2019. After multiple phases of screening the retrieved articles, 150 articles formed the current research population. This study examined several articles in systematic review and meta-analysis, the publication trend, the status of authors' countries, authors’ affiliation, and the published sources of the articles.
Results: Meta-analysis articles account for 52% of the research population. The largest share of the highly cited papers was for 2018. The results showed that 61.3% of the studies were conducted through international cooperation. Researchers in the USA, England, Netherlands, and Canada have conducted most studies—the most significant number of the articles published in the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal. Most highly cited articles (79.33%) were published in Q1 journals.
Conclusion: The publication of the highly cited articles has significantly benefited from international collaboration. Researchers from 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
- cardiovascular medicine
How to Cite
References
1. World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) [Internet]. World Health Organization. 2017 [cited 2021 Jun 11]. Available from: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds)
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. 2017 Oct 1;177(10):1489–97. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.39583
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. doi: 10.1111/jep.12460
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 Pract. 2019 [cited 2023 Apr 8]. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/discuss-ebm/what-is-the-best-evidence-and-how-to-find-it/
6. 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):125–127. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401
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):336–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
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):777–784. doi: 10.7326/M14-2385
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):1290–1296. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.10.1290
12. Impellizzeri FM, Bizzini M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: a primer. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(5):493–503. PMID: 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):253–260. doi: 10.2215/CJN.01430307
14. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):415–423. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31592-6
15. Duquesne University Graduate School of Nursing . Why is evidence-based practice in nursing so important? [Internet]. 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 8]. Available from: https://onlinenursing.duq.edu/blog/why-is-evidence-based-practice-important
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):824–831. doi: 10.1590/s0104-11692010000400023
17. Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Fam Med Prim care. 2013;2(1):9–14. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.109934
18. Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71(2):103–112. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103
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): e4822. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004822
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. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2019.1653495
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):2100–2109. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.08.030
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;222:1049–1052. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.002
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. doi: 10.1186/s12968-016-0303-9
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):972–981. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.01.029
25. Kantek F, Yesilbas H. Conflict in nursing studies: A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited papers. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(10):2531–2546. doi: 10.1111/jan.14463
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; 15(4) :102160. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2021.05.033
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. Futur Cardiol. 2020;16(3):189–197. doi: 10.2217/fca-2019-0016
- Abstract Viewed: 349 times
- e38 (PDF) Downloaded: 237 times
