Publication-Based Academic Interest in Drugs and Techniques for Treatment of Postoperative Pain, 1975-2015

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.

Academic Journals Assessed as Springboards for New Developments: A Study of Leading Anesthesia Journals Over Past 50 Years

PURPOSE

The impact of academic journals on scientific activity can be measured using different approaches. The aim of this study was to assess the leading anesthesia journals as springboards for new developments in the field of anesthesia.

METHODS

The selection of the topics for analysis was based on the degree of increase in the number of articles on a topic that was at the center of specialty interest during 1966-2015. The assessment of a journal's response to a new development was made by measuring the number of initial articles on a related topic. Six leading anesthesia journals were assessed collectively and individually as to whether their responses to new developments were prompt and prominent.

RESULTS

The role of the leading specialty journals in presentation of 28 topics related to prominent new developments in anesthesia was found to depend on the nature of topics and the type of articles. Compared with all PubMed journals publishing articles associated with anesthesia in 1966-2015, the six leading anesthesia journals published 43% of drug-related research articles, 30% of technique-related research articles, and 16% of both drug- and technique-related review articles. Regarding initial publications (on new topics), this group of six journals contributed comparably more articles: from 43% to 84% of drug-related research articles, from 30% to 49% of technique-related research articles, from 16% to 33% of drug-related review articles, and from 16% to 25% of technique-related review articles. The approximate doubling of the shares demonstrates the dominance of this group of journals in the swiftness response to new anesthesia developments. The promptness of reaction to new developments in anesthesia of each of the six leading anesthesia journals was assessed (the combination of drug- and technique-related articles) based on the number of articles published among the first (first 5 plus next 30) on all 28 topics. The ranking order of four journals (with the highest number of all 1966-2015 articles) regarding early publications was (from high to low): Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, and Anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This study assesses six leading anesthesia journals for their function as springboards for new developments in anesthesia over the past 50 years. The dominance of leading journals in initial publications on 28 drug-related and technique-related topics was clearly demonstrated. The results also indicate the possibility of using promptness of response to new advances for quantitative assessment of this aspect of a journal's contribution to the specialty.

What Can Big Data on Academic Interest Reveal about a Drug? Reflections in Three Major US Databases

The different stages of the life cycle of a drug - 'prenatal' stage, birth of a drug, rapid growth, maturity and stability, decline, and status before 'death' - are reflected in the three following databases: journal articles (PubMed-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed); patents (US Patent Office-http://partfl1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htlm); and approved drugs (FDA - www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index/cfm). These databases are huge, from authoritative sources, correctly classified, and they properly link different datasets. Analysis of such data can uncover hidden patterns important for the assessment of drug status and may also yield some predictions regarding its future prospects. Drug-related, publication-based academic bibliographic records are especially numerous and support the development of various scientometric indices. In combination with information from other types of databases, they can outline various trends in pharmacology. Scientometric indices can be classified into those indicating a change in the status of a drug, and those assessing the chances for success, or even drug discontinuation. Here, we present big data analytics on publication-based academic interest in two segments: (i) description of scientometric indices and (ii) their applications for the assessment of the status of a drug.