A bibliometric analysis of top-cited journal articles in interstitial cystitis and bladder pain syndrome

The efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody therapies for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody therapies (MATs) for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Embase, clinicalTrial.gov, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MATs versus placebo were included. Primary outcomes comprised the Global Response Assessment (GRA) scale and the O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI). Additional analyses encompassed mean daily frequency of voids, the O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index, pain scores, and complications. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Five high-quality RCTs, comprising 263 patients with IC/BPS, were ultimately selected. MATs were generally effective in treating IC/BPS. Patients receiving MATs exhibited a higher satisfaction rate (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7, confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-5.58, p = 0.007) and lower ICSI scores (mean difference [MD]: -1.44, CI: -2.36 to -0.52, p = 0.002). Moreover, MAT recipients experienced reduced pain (MD: -0.53, CI: -0.79 to -0.26, p < 0.0001) and decreased frequency of urination (MD: -1.91, CI: -2.55 to -1.27, p < 0.00001). Importantly, there were no disparities regarding complication incidence in the MAT and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings indicate that MATs are effective and safe for treating IC/BPS. Nonetheless, future RCTs with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up are warranted.

Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls

During the last decades, the emergence of Bibliometrics and the progress in Pain research have led to a proliferation of bibliometric studies on the medical and scientific literature of pain (B/P). This study charts the evolution of the B/P literature published during the last 30 years. Using various searching techniques, 189 B/P studies published from 1993 to August 2022 were collected for analysis-half were published since 2018. Most of the selected B/P publications use classic bibliometric analysis of Pain in toto, while some focus on specific types of Pain with Headache/Migraine, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, and Cancer Pain dominating. Each study is characterized by the origin (geographical, economical, institutional, …) and the medical/scientific context over a specified time span to provide a detailed landscape of the Pain research literature. Some B/P studies have been developed to pinpoint difficulties in appropriately identifying the Pain literature or to highlight some general publishing pitfalls. Having observed that most of the recent B/P studies have integrated newly emergent software visualization tools (SVTs), we found an increase of anomalies and suggest that readers exercise caution when interpreting results in the B/P literature details.