COVID-19 burden, author affiliation and women's well-being: A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 related publications including focus on low- and middle-income countries

Trends of Neurosurgical Publications in High-Impact Medical Journals: A Bibliometric Study

BACKGROUND

The subspecialized, clinically complex nature of neurosurgery should not result in marginalization or under-representation of neurosurgical scientific output. This study aims to provide an overview of the trends of neurosurgical publications in high-impact medical journals during the past 3 decades.

METHODS

An electronic database search was performed to identify all articles affiliated with neurosurgery departments published in 10 highly regarded medical journals. The trend of the proportion of neurosurgical publications to total publications in these journals was examined over time. Subgroup analyses on the basis of location, setting, domain, grant source, and topic of the articles were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 2090 neurosurgical publications were identified in the selected journals, comprising 0.26% of those journals' publications. The proportion of neurosurgical publications to total publications in these journals increased over time, from 0.03% before 1991 to 0.35% after 2020. Most studies were single-center (82.7%), clinical (52.4%), and primary research (89%). The United States (40.1%), China (12.4%) and the United Kingdom (7.1%) had the greatest number of neurosurgical publications among those analyzed. The share of clinical neurosurgical articles increased over time compared with basic and translational articles (P = 0.01). Among neurosurgical subspecialties, neuro-oncology (60.1%), vascular (19.0%), and general (7.0%) had the greatest number of publications identified, with substantial increases in vascular publications over time. The mean number of citations per year received by neurosurgical articles has increased over time, from 1.65 (before 1991) to 4.12 (2010-2020).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgery's proportion of high-impact journal publications has increased over time.

Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements

BACKGROUND

A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO).

METHODS

The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds.

RESULTS

The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review.

CONCLUSIONS

The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Mental Health of Healthcare Workers and Job Loss From a Gender Perspective in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant stress and anxiety among the general population and healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide. India is one of the countries severely impacted by the pandemic. This review explores the gender perspective of mental health conditions among HCWs and job loss during the pandemic in India. Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for articles published till March 2021. Studies that reported the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, and worry among HCWs in India during the pandemic and job loss in both males and females due to COVID-19 were included. We used a random-effects model to estimate pooled prevalence rates with 95% CIs. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. The meta-analysis included 11 studies; the pooled prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, and worry among HCWs was 34.9% (95%CI 27.33, 42.47), 35.4% (95%CI 24.46, 46.33), 32.9% (95%CI 25.43, 40.37), and 42.87% (95%CI 25.83, 59.91), respectively. The pooled prevalence of job loss due to COVID-19 was 16.6% (95%CI 8.34, 19.66). We employed meta-regression and Egger's regression for publication bias. The meta-analysis findings suggest that the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, and worry among HCWs in India during COVID-19 was high. Furthermore, job loss due to COVID-19 has also been prevalent in India. These findings emphasize the need for mental health support for HCWs and those who have lost their jobs during the pandemic. It is essential to prioritize mental health and job creation policies in India to support individuals affected by COVID-19.