Evolution of the scientific literature on pain from 1976 to 2007

Italian versions of the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ): psychometric properties and an investigation on the understanding of pain neurophysiology in physical therapists

OBJECTIVES

The Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) is widely used to assess pain knowledge among clinicians and patients with pain, but an Italian version is not available. This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the NPQ into Italian, to test its psychometric properties, to assess the knowledge of Italian physical therapists (PTs) on pain, and to evaluate which characteristics are associated with pain knowledge.

METHODS

The NPQ was translated into Italian, integrated with some additional questions (IT-NPQ-New), and sent by email via the Italian Association of Physiotherapy newsletter. Rasch analysis (RA) was used to test the psychometric properties of the Italian versions. Multivariable regression analyses were used to check for associations between participants' characteristics and their NPQ scores.

RESULTS

A sample of 753 PTs completed the survey. RA of the NPQ-19 and IT-NPQ-New revealed that 10 (IT-NPQ-10) and 18 (IT-NPQ-18) items fit the model. Both questionnaires showed good psychometric properties. The overall median score among Italian PTs was 6.0 [5.0-7.0] and 11.0 [9.0-13.0] points for the IT-NPQ-10 and the IT-NPQ-18, respectively. These scores were statistically different among groups according to gender, age, years of professional activity, post-graduate specialization and days attended of targeted pain courses, with the latter being the most influential variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Italian PTs now dispose of two tools to assess their basic knowledge related to pain science. Our study also showed that pain knowledge among Italian PTs needs improvement, especially considering recent biopsychosocial approaches to pain.

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.

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.

High-impact papers in the field of anesthesiology: a 10-year cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

This study was performed to evaluate trends in and provide future direction for anesthesiology education, research, and clinical practice.

METHODS

We collected high-impact papers, ranking in the top 10% in the field of anesthesiology and published from 2011 to 2020, by the InCites tool based on the Web of Science Core Collection. We analyzed the trends, locations, distribution of subject categories, research organizations, collaborative networks, and subject terms of these papers.

RESULTS

A total of 4,685 high-impact papers were included for analysis. The number of high-impact papers increased from 462 in 2011 to 520 in 2020. The paper with the highest value of category normalized citation impact (115.95) was published in Anesthesia and Analgesia in 2018. High-impact papers were mainly distributed in the subject categories of "Anesthesiology," "Clinical Neurology," "Neurosciences," and "Medicine General Internal." They were primarily cited in "Anesthesiology," "Clinical Neurology," "Neurosciences," "Medicine General Internal," and "Surgery." Most of these high-impact papers came from the USA, UK, Canada, Germany, and Australia. The most productive institutions were the League of European Research Universities, Harvard University, University of Toronto, University of London, University of California System, and University Health Network Toronto. Research collaboration circles have been formed in the USA, UK, and Canada. Subject-term analysis indicated postoperative analgesia, chronic pain, and perioperative complications were high-interest topics, and COVID-19 became a new hot topic in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provides a historical view of high-impact papers in anesthesiology in the past ten years. High-impact papers were mostly from the USA. Postoperative analgesia, chronic pain, and perioperative complications have been hot topics, and COVID-19 became a new topic in 2020. These findings provide references for education, research, and clinical practice in the field of anesthesiology.

Bibliometric Analysis of Research Articles on Pain in the Elderly Published from 2000 to 2019

Background

Given the rapid growth of the global aging population, pain has become an unneglectable concern amongst the elderly. The quantity of scientific research outputs on pain in the elderly has increased over time, but only a small number of studies have used bibliometric methods to analyze scientific research in this field. This paper aimed to analyze scientific research on pain in the elderly published from 2000 to 2019 in a systematic manner using bibliometric methods.

Methods

Articles on pain in the elderly published from 2000 to 2019 were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS). Abstracts were coded on the basis of predetermined items (eg, type of article, topic, type of subjects, pain characteristics), and relevant information on the first author, citation scores, and article keywords were collected.

Results

A total of 2105 articles were included in this study. Statistical analysis revealed that the publication of articles on pain in the elderly increased in frequency over time (P<0.001). Most of the publications were original articles. Amongst the countries identified, the United States published the largest number of papers on this topic. Pain characteristics (50.21%), pain intervention (35.68%), and pain assessment (9.69%) were the main topics of research on geriatric pain. Back pain (12.30%) appeared to be the most popular pain type described in the included papers.

Conclusion

This work provides researchers with an in-depth understanding of pain in the elderly by evaluating relevant publications in the past two decades. Researchers in this field are warranted to explore future directions on geriatric pain such as the transition from acute pain to chronic pain and the underlying mechanisms of pain in the elderly.

Impact of the economic crisis on pain research: a bibliometric analysis of pain research publications from Ireland, Greece, and Portugal between 1997 and 2017

Background and aims The recent economic crisis started in the USA in 2008 but quickly had worldwide impact. Ireland, Greece, and Portugal were in economic distress in 2009 and received rescue monetary packages from the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the following years. Meanwhile, the economic recovery has begun for those countries, but at different paces. The aim of the present study was to evaluate if the economic crisis influenced pain research outcomes, by performing a bibliometric analysis based on the ISI Web of Science to evaluate the evolution of the scientific production and performance in the field of pain research between 1997 and 2017. Methods Articles search was conducted using the ISI Web of Science, search keywords "pain or nocicep*", between 1997 and 2017, and one author affiliated in an Irish, Greek or Portuguese institution. The total number of published articles per country, total citations, h-index, document types and authors' institution were tabulated to determine the quantity and quality of the publications in this field. Results The search retrieved 2,368 publications over the 20 years' period, increasing from 26 in 1997 to 230 in 2017. The number of Irish publications per year increased steadily along the studied period, while the number of Greek publications stabilized from 2008 onward and Portuguese publications started to increase only in 2007 but declined slightly after 2014. In total, Irish authors published 1,143 articles, Greek authors 624 and Portuguese authors 618. There were nine articles with more than 100 citations, and Irish publications had a higher h-index (52) than Greek's (45) or Portuguese's (36) publications. Ireland had the highest number of pain publications per capita, but in 2016 Portugal had the lowest cost per publication, as measured by the GDP per capita per publication (in 1997 Portugal had the highest cost). The three major research fields of the publications were neurosciences/neurology (19%), general internal medicine (16%) and anaesthesiology (13%), and the affiliation institutions were mostly universities or universities hospitals. Conclusions The number of Irish, Greek, and Portuguese pain publications increased between 1997 and 2017, but at different paces. It appears that the economic crisis had no impact on the rate of pain publications in Ireland, had a delayed impact in Portugal, and affected mostly Greek pain scientific research. This may be related to the fact that Greece was the country that received more rescue packages and where the economic crisis was deepest and lasted longer. Implications Economics and scientific production have a mutual influence: usually research investment decreases in recession times (reducing grants and scientific employment), but health scientific production can improve health and quality of life and also benefit the economy. So in crisis periods, governments should create means to protect and foster scientific work.

Worldwide orthopaedic research activity 2010-2014: Publication rates in the top 15 orthopaedic journals related to population size and gross domestic product

AIM

To perform a bibliometric analysis of publications rates in orthopedics in the top 15 orthopaedic journals.

METHODS

Based on their 2015 impact factor, the fifteen highest ranked orthopaedic journals between January 2010 and December 2014 were used to establish the total number of publications; cumulative impact factor points (IF) per country were determined, and normalized to population size, GDP, and GDP/capita, comparison to the median country output and the global leader.

RESULTS

Twenty-three thousand and twenty-one orthopaedic articles were published, with 66 countries publishing. The United States had 8149 publications, followed by the United Kingdom (1644) and Japan (1467). The highest IF was achieved by the United States (24744), United Kingdom (4776), and Japan (4053). Normalized by population size Switzerland lead. Normalized by GDP, Croatia was the top achiever. Adjusting GDP/capita, for publications and IF, China, India, and the United States were the leaders. Adjusting for population size and GDP, 28 countries achieved numbers of publications to be considered at least equivalent with the median academic output. Adjusting GDP/capita only China and India reached the number of publications to be considered equivalent to the current global leader, the United States.

CONCLUSION

Five countries were responsible for 60% of the orthopaedic research output over this 5-year period. After correcting for GDP/capita, only 28 of 66 countries achieved a publication rate equivalent to the median country. The United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, and Germany were the top five countries for both publication totals and cumulative impact factor points.

Trend of academic publication activity in anesthesiology: A 2-decade bibliographic perspective

OBJECTIVES

The publication of anesthesiology papers presents the importance of understanding the corresponding research activity. This research used the bibliographic method to investigate the publication trend in anesthesiology using Science Citation Index Expanded over the period 1995-2014.

METHODS

The journals listed in the subject category of anesthesiology in the 2014 Journal Citation Reports were selected, and bibliographic information was collected from Science Citation Index Expanded, with 128,003 papers published from 1995 to 2014. Only the document type "article" was analyzed. The productivity and impact of various journals, countries, and institutions are discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 64,199 articles published from 1995 to 2014, with 1,084,491 cited times, were examined. The total number of articles published by journals showed a slight increase in the 2^nd decade. More than 45% of these articles were published by the top five journals, which have maintained their ranking over 2 decades. Most publications originated from North America and European countries, of which the United States had the highest number of publications and citations. Most of the institutions are academic universities and hospitals. More than half of the top 25 institutions (in rankings) are located in the United States, and Harvard University accounted the highest number of articles and citations among all institutions.

CONCLUSION

The results reported here may aid clinicians and researchers to better understand the worldwide contribution of anesthesiology research activities over 2 decades.

Growth of Headache Research: A 1983-2014 bibliometric study

Aim This study charts the growth of the scientific journal literature on headache for 30+ years (1983-2014). Methods Using the Web of Science, articles published in four two-year periods (1983-1984, 1993-1994, 2003-2004, 2013-2014) from journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded database were retrieved and analyzed. Results From 1983-1984 to 2013-2014, the scientific literature on headache increased nearly fourfold (3.8) from 468 to 1776 articles; the number of participating countries more than doubled (26 to 67); and the two most prolific countries in each period were the USA and Italy. While several European countries (Italy, Germany, UK and Denmark) were among the top 10 in each period, the notable appearance of Turkey, China and Brazil among the top 10 in 2013-2014 indicates the growing geographic spread of publications on headache research. Meanwhile, the comet-like distribution of journals has not changed: two journals, Headache and Cephalalgia, persist throughout as the nucleus, with the tail increasing more than threefold from 141 journals in 1983-1984 to 462 in 2013-2014. Conclusion Our study follows the recent growth and spread of the scientific literature on headache research and should stimulate further bibliometric investigation in this field.

Analysis of Research Activity in Gastroenterology: Pancreatitis Is in Real Danger

OBJECTIVE

Biomedical investment trends in 2015 show a huge decrease of investment in gastroenterology. Since academic research usually provides the basis for industrial research and development (R&D), our aim was to understand research trends in the field of gastroenterology over the last 50 years and identify the most endangered areas.

METHODS

We searched for PubMed hits for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases for the 1965-2015 period. Overall, 1,554,325 articles were analyzed. Since pancreatology was identified as the most endangered field of research within gastroenterology, we carried out a detailed evaluation of research activity in pancreatology.

RESULTS

In 1965, among the major benign GI disorders, 51.9% of the research was performed on hepatitis, 25.7% on pancreatitis, 21.7% on upper GI diseases and only 0.7% on the lower GI disorders. Half a century later, in 2015, research on hepatitis and upper GI diseases had not changed significantly; however, studies on pancreatitis had dropped to 10.7%, while work on the lower GI disorders had risen to 23.4%. With regard to the malignant disorders (including liver, gastric, colon, pancreatic and oesophageal cancer), no such large-scale changes were observed in the last 50 years. Detailed analyses revealed that besides the drop in research activity in pancreatitis, there are serious problems with the quality of the studies as well. Only 6.8% of clinical trials on pancreatitis were registered and only 5.5% of these registered trials were multicentre and multinational (more than five centres and nations), i.e., the kind that provides the highest level of impact and evidence level.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a clear drop in research activity in pancreatitis. New international networks and far more academic R&D activities should be established in order to find the first therapy specifically for acute pancreatitis.

A bibliometric analysis on top-cited articles in pain research

OBJECTIVE

The field of pain-related research has gained more attention as the prevalence of chronic pain increased over the years. The objective of this research was to identify highly cited papers, as well as contributors, to pain-related research.

DESIGN

Pain-related articles published from 1900 to 2011 were screened, and highly cited papers, with at least 100 citations since publication, were identified and selected for a bibliometric analysis. The total number of papers, authorship, and collaboration statistics are presented for countries, institutions, and authors. To assess contributions, a new indicator, the major contributor index (MCI), was used. Citation trends for all papers, as well as for top papers, are presented.

RESULTS

A total of 7,327 articles, 2.4% of all pain related articles, had received at least 100 citations since publication. In recent decades, top-cited articles have reached a citation peak more quickly, and have shown a more-rapid decreasing trend, compared with top-cited articles from earlier decades. The leading countries were United States, U.K., Canada, and Germany. The leading institutions were Harvard University, University of California, San Francisco, University of Texas, and University of Washington. MCI varied among leading institutions, as well as among individual authors.

CONCLUSIONS

An indicator like the MCI can provide a proxy for the contributions made by an individual or institution. It reflects the independent research ability and leadership. In future evaluations of institution or individual performances, the MCI should be included, together with the number of total papers, to provide a better profile of research performance.

Orofacial pain: a primer

Orofacial pain refers to pain associated with the soft and hard tissues of the head, face, and neck. It is a common experience in the population that has profound sociologic effects and impact on quality of life. New scientific evidence is constantly providing insight into the cause and pathophysiology of orofacial pain including temporomandibular disorders, cranial neuralgias, persistent idiopathic facial pains, headache, and dental pain. An evidence-based approach to the management of orofacial pain is imperative for the general clinician. This article reviews the basics of pain epidemiology and neurophysiology and sets the stage for in-depth discussions of various painful conditions of the head and neck.

Bibliometric analysis on retinoblastoma literatures in PubMed during 1929 to 2010

AIM

To determine the growth rule and tendency of retinoblastoma (Rb) literature, and to provide the basis for research of diagnosis, treatment and on Rb.

METHODS

Bibliometric analyses were carried out on Rb literatures which contain the descriptors of Rb in their titles or texts from 1929 to 2010 in PubMed database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Pubmed). The biomedical journals referring to Rb by using bibliometric indicators were calculated. The principal bibliometric indicators, i.e., Price's and Bradford's laws to the increase or distribution of scientific literature, the participation index of languages and the journals were applied. By means of manual coding, Rb documents were classified according to documents studied and to statistical analysis.

RESULTS

During 1929-2010, there were 16162 literatures in the PubMed database including the word Rb. According to the literature type, it includes Review (n=2026), Randomized Controlled Trial (n=7), Practice guideline (n=3), meta-analysis (n=4), letter (n=215), editorial (n=98), clinical trial (n=115) and others (n=13694). By the statistical analysis, its equation is near power index (y=3.0477x(2.6088), R(2)=0.9666). From 1929 to 2010, Rb literatures in English were primarily dominant (90.71%) and the amount of the literature in Chinese ranked the fourth (1.37%). By searching PubMed, 1420(8.8%) literatures covered were from 41 of 48 ophthalmological, and 406 (2.5%) literatures from 44 of 86 pediatrics journals that correlated with retinoblastoma (SCI-indexed). The data showed that the literatures of Rb were gradually increasing year by year and were approximate near power index during 1929-2010, and the document publishes published mainly in ophthalmological journals, and in English (90.71%), and showing that the study on Rb is a popular subject in the last half century.

CONCLUSION

The literatures of Rb are gradually increasing, mainly English in ophthalmologic journals.