An exhaustive analysis of post-traumatic brain injury dementia using bibliometric methodologies

Association Between Statin Use and Dementia, and Related Mechanisms: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2007 to 2023

Background

Emerging evidence suggests the potential of hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA, statins) as a therapeutic option for dementia.

Objective

The primary objective of this study is to assess the current state of research on statins use in dementia, with a focus on identifying pivotal questions within the field.

Methods

A systemic search for publications on statin use in dementia between 2007 and 2023 was conducted, utilizing the Web of Science Core Collection. The scientific output was analyzed from various perspectives through VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the bibliometrics website (https://bibliometric.com/).

Results

560 articles authored by 2,977 individuals and 999 institutions across 58 countries were included, which were published in 295 periodicals and cited 21,176 references from 16,424 authors. The annual publication output remained steady, while the number of citations increased consistently. The U.S. and Mayo Clinic emerged as the most significant country and institution, respectively. B. McGuinness and D.L. Sparks were the most eminent authors. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease was the most influential journal. Three sets of keywords and the top 10 references were identified, suggesting pivotal questions within the field.

Conclusions

While statins show promising potential as a treatment option for dementia, their use remains uncertain due to the reported short-term cognitive impairment events and questionable long-term protective effects against dementia. The pivotal question is to ascertain the association between statins and cognition. The mechanisms underlying the effects of statins on cognition are multifaceted. This study provides insights into the current status within the field of statin use in dementia.

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.