Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Publications on Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Past Two Decades

The evolving landscape of publishing in the field of pain: An automated bibliometric analysis from 1975 to 2020

BACKGROUND

The aims of this bibliometric analysis were (1) a longitudinal analysis of the publication landscape in the field of pain (1975-2020) and (2) to characterize the overall publication profiles for two selected journals: European Journal of Pain and PAIN® utilizing an automated approach.

METHODS

Database searches in Scopus extracted all journals with 'pain' in their title. For the two specific journals, papers were manually/automatically profiled into preclinical, human and translational studies.

RESULTS

A gross list of 64 journals in the field of pain consisting of both active and ceased journals in Scopus were included in this analysis which identified 62,565 papers with approximately 4000 papers published/year. These papers include 2759 and 9156 papers in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN®, respectively. Currently, there are 24 active 'pain' journals. Authors/paper increase from 2 to 7 indicating a development from mono-disciplinary to multi-disciplinary studies. The overall publication profiles assessing preclinical, human (experimental/clinical) and translational papers in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN® were almost similar (14%, 75% and 10% versus 26%, 63% and 10%). Papers have changed over the years from mono-disciplinary studies (e.g. behavioural studies) to multi-disciplinary studies (e.g. combined behavioural and cell studies). After optimization, the search model matched the manual screening by 100%, 98% and 96% for the preclinical, clinical and healthy volunteer categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 45 years, more than 60,000 pain-related papers have been published. Papers develop over the years from mono-disciplinary to multi-disciplinary studies. The overall publication profile including preclinical, human (experimental/clinical) and translational papers was almost similar in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN®.

SIGNIFICANCE

The bibliometric analysis of a pain journal provides information on which specific areas of research are published, how this may have changed over the years and how a journal is positioned compared with other journals in the field.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Top-Cited Journal Articles Related to Neuromodulation for Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

Since its foundation in the 1960s, neuromodulation has become an increasingly used treatment option for chronic pain. This bibliometric analysis examines the most cited research in this field with the aim of uncovering existing trends and future directions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clarivate's Web of Science data base was searched for the top 25 most cited studies focusing on neuromodulation for chronic pain. Various bibliometric parameters were then extracted and analyzed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were compared with non-RCTs.

RESULTS

The top 25 articles had a mean of 347 citations and 22.2 citations per year, with more recent articles having a higher citation rate. Most were published in the last two decades and predominantly originated from the United States. There were 13 RCTs, which were significantly more recent (p = 0.004) and more cited per year (p = 0.001) than the 12 non-RCTs. Sources included 15 journals with a mean impact factor of 13.896. The most studied modality was spinal cord stimulation with 20 articles (76.9%), followed by intrathecal drug delivery (15.4%), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (3.8%), and peripheral nerve stimulation (3.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the most cited articles on neuromodulation reveals a focal shift from historical reports to innovative RCTs that have increasingly guided pain practice in the recent years. As novel techniques and technologies continue to develop, high-quality evidence coupled with broadening indications will likely direct further expansion of this field.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Spine Surgery

Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) techniques are usually implemented during spine surgery to avoid nefarious abuse of the nervous system, which can cause postoperative problems. A lack of bibliometric analysis on the topic of IONM in spine surgery has been identified. Therefore, the aims of this study are to provide information about the main contributors to this field and their publication dynamics, as well as conceptual and cooperative networks. Results have shown that a steady publication increase has been occurring since 1991, with high levels of citations in the first decade, but irregular publication rates have been recorded more recently. Research production by country seems to be in line with what is observed in other surgical fields, but research funding for IONM in spine surgery seems to be lower, even with the clear interest of private funding agencies. The conceptual networks have shown the importance of motor-evoked potential, electromyography, and the effect of anesthesia, particularly in scoliosis surgery.