The 100 most cited manuscripts in esophageal motility disorders: a bibliometric analysis

Bibliometric Analysis of 100 Most Highly Cited Publications on Acupuncture for Migraine

Background

Migraine is a serious global health concern that imposed a huge economic burden on social health care. Over the past few decades, the analgesic effects of acupuncture have been widely recognized, and there is a growing body of research on acupuncture for migraine. Citation analysis is a branch of bibliometrics that helps researchers analyze and identify historical or landmark studies within the scientific literature. Currently, there is no analysis of the 100 most highly cited publications on acupuncture for migraine.

Methods

The 100 most highly cited publications on acupuncture for migraine were screened using the Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science Core Collection database. CiteSpace and VOSviewer programs were used for bibliometric analysis.

Results

A total of 493 publications on acupuncture for migraine were identified. 100 of the most highly cited publications on acupuncture for migraine were published from 1984-2020. These publications were cited 6142 times with an h-index of 44 and 84% were original articles. The highest frequency of citations was 416. A total of 335 authors were involved in the study with 37 lead authors. 212 institutions from 20 countries contributed to the 100 most highly cited publications. The most published studies came from the United States (n=36), followed by China (n=27) and Germany (n=26). The Technical University of Munich published the largest number of papers (n = 15). Top-cited publications mainly came from the Headache (n=13, citations=582). Neuroimaging is gradually emerging as a hot topic of research.

Conclusion

This is the first bibliometric analysis to offer a thorough list of the 100 most highly cited papers on acupuncture for migraine, demonstrating significant progress and emerging trends in this field to assist researchers in determining the direction for further research.

Impact of investigator initiated trials and industry sponsored trials on medical practice (IMPACT): rationale and study design

BACKGROUND

The German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated large research programs to foster high quality clinical research in the academic area. These investigator initiated trials (IITs) cover important areas of medical research and often go beyond the scope of industry sponsored trials (ISTs). The purpose of this project was to understand to what extent results of randomized controlled IITs and ISTs have an impact on medical practice, measured by their availability for decisions in healthcare and their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to determine study characteristics influencing a trial's impact such as type of sponsor and place of conduct. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of this project and present the characteristics of the trials included in our study cohort.

METHODS

The research impact of the following sub-cohorts was compared: German IITs (funded by DFG and BMBF or by other German non-commercial organizations), international IITs (without German contribution), German ISTs, and international ISTs. Trials included were drawn from the DFG-/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov . Research impact was measured as follows: 1) proportion of published trials, 2) time to publication, 3) proportion of publications appropriately indexed in biomedical databases, 4) proportion of openly accessible publications, 5) broadness of publication's target group, 6) citation of publications by systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 7) appearance of publications or citing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines. We also aimed to identify study characteristics associated with the impact of trials.

RESULTS

We included 691 trials: 120 German IITs, 200 International IITs, 171 German ISTs and 200 International ISTs. The median number of participants was 150, 30% were international trials and 70% national trials, 48% drug-trials and 52% non-drug trials. Overall, 72% of the trials had one pre-defined primary endpoint, 28% two or more (max. 36).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this project deepen our understanding of the impact of biomedical research on clinical practice and healthcare policy, add important insights for the efficient allocation of scarce research resources and may facilitate providing accountability to the different stakeholders involved.