bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2019‒05‒26
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Apr 23. pii: S0278-2391(19)30446-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Diniz-Freitas M, Pena-Cristobal M, Pérez-López D, Lago-Méndez L, Fernández-Feijoo J, Limeres J.
      PURPOSE: Citation analysis is one of the most commonly used bibliometric tools for measuring the academic importance of a report in a specific area of knowledge. The objective of the present study was to identify the 100 most cited reports on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), determine their main bibliometric characteristics, and identify the bibliometric variables that affected the citation rates.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a data search in the Scopus database to determine the number of MRONJ article citations up to September 30, 2018. We next selected the 100 most referenced studies and recorded the following information: ranking according to the number of citations; citation density; number and names of authors; language and year of publication; country and institution of origin; financial support; journal name, impact factor, category, and quartile; type of research; evidence level; and area of study.
    RESULTS: The 100 most cited reports had a mean citation density of 21.7 ± 20.7 (range, 6.2 to 99.4) and an h-index of 96. The 100 most cited reports on MRONJ had been published in 42 scientific journals, classified into 10 separate categories of the Journal Citation Reports; 56% of the articles were in the first quartile of their category. Most of the studies had been classified with a level of evidence of 4 (n = 45) or 5 (n = 29). In the bivariate analyses, only the conflict of interest (P = .002) was associated with citation density. After adjusting for numerous variables, conflict of interest (r = 0.27; P = .020) and country of the first author (r = 0.23; P = .043) were significantly associated with citation density.
    CONCLUSIONS: The 100 most cited studies of MRONJ had a large number of citations and had been reported in journals with a high impact factor; however, the studies had a generally low evidence level and randomized clinical trials were lacking.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.04.015
  2. Laryngoscope. 2019 May 21.
    Coelho DH, Kirk A, Miller D, Hasan K, Fenton JE.
      INTRODUCTION: "Sleeping Beauties" (SBs) are articles that receive little attention in the literature for many years after publication but suddenly "awaken" at a later date to greatly increased relevance. This effort represents the first attempt at identifying SBs within the otolaryngology literature.METHODS: The Web of Science Database was queried for all papers under the section "Otolaryngology" between 1945 and 2007. All papers were assigned a "Beauty Coefficient" (B), based on an a priori formula. Three groups were analyzed: 1) highest overall SBs, 2) clinically significant SBs (papers with greater than 100 total citations), and 3) modern SBs (published 1988 and later).
    RESULTS: 80,532 papers were identified, with SB able to be calculated in 79,523. Papers spanned a wide array of topics within the Otolaryngology literature. Unlike analysis of SBs in other disciplines, no obvious patterns or themes appeared consistently within or between any of the three groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first known analysis of SBs in our field. While no obvious patterns or unifying themes were observed, this analysis highlights the clinical impact of SBs and underscores the idea that in this surgical field, important ideas may be proposed "ahead of their time."
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 2019.
    Keywords:  Sleeping Beauty; bibliometric; citation; otolaryngology; reference
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28058
  3. Colorectal Dis. 2019 May 24.
    Jeong JW, Kim MJ, Oh HK, Jeong S, Kim MH, Cho JR, Kim DW, Kang SB.
      AIM: This study aimed to investigate the association between Twitter exposure and the number of citations for coloproctology articles.METHOD: Original articles from journals using Twitter between June 2015 and May 2016 were evaluated for the following characteristics: publishing journal; article subject; study design; nationality, specialty and affiliation of the author(s); and reference on Twitter. Citation data for these articles were retrieved from Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com) in January 2018. We performed a univariate analysis using this data followed by a multivariate, logistic regression analysis to search for factors associated with a high citation level which was defined as having accrued more than five citations.
    RESULTS: Out of six coloproctology journals listed on the InCites JCR database, three (Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Colorectal Disease, and Techniques in Coloproctology) used Twitter where 200 (49.5%) out of a total of 404 articles had been featured. Citation rates of articles featured on Twitter were significantly higher (11.4 ± 9.2 vs 4.1 ± 3.1, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, Twitter exposure (OR 8.6, p = 0.001), EU nationality (OR 2.4, p = 0.004), Colorectal Disease journal (OR 3.3, p = 0.005) and systematic review articles (OR 3.4, p = 0.009) were associated with higher citation levels.
    CONCLUSION: Article exposure on Twitter was strongly associated with a high citation level. Medical communities should encourage journals as well as physicians to actively utilize social media to expedite the spread of new ideas and ultimately benefit the medical society as a whole. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14719
  4. Eur Urol Focus. 2019 May 15. pii: S2405-4569(19)30140-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Nolte AC, Nguyen KA, Perecman A, Katz MS, Kenney PA, Cooperberg MR, Gross CP, Leapman MS.
      BACKGROUND: Social media is an increasingly popular means to disseminate medical research. However, it is unknown whether the extent to which content is shared mirrors conventional measures of scientific merit or impact.OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Twitter activity (as measured by the number of "likes" and "retweets" [RTs]) relating to original research presented at a national urology meeting was associated with subsequent publication status and journal impact factor (IF).
    DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively reviewed Twitter data obtained through the Keyhole archiving platform using the hashtag "#aua15" from May 1 through June 1, 2015 reflecting the hashtag of the American Urological Association (AUA) meeting.
    OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We analyzed all posts containing keywords related to research studies. Among posts reporting on newly presented studies with discernable attribution, we evaluated subsequent publication status within 45 mo, including journal IF. We compared social media reception (number of likes/RTs) by publication status, and assessed the relationship between social media reception and subsequent journal IF using Pearson's correlation.
    RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 15 303 posts were associated with #aua15 between May 1 and June 1, 2015, which reached 2 263 438 users. The median number of likes/RTs was 2 (interquartile range 1-3). We analyzed all posts receiving at least one like/RT (n = 2964) for text content related to research and identified 496 associated with new scientific studies presented at the meeting. Forty-five months following the AUA meeting, 96 studies were identifiable on PubMed (19.4%). Research with more likes/RTs at the AUA meeting were more likely to be subsequently published (p = 0.001). Among published studies, there was a modest, positive correlation between the number of likes/RTs and publication journal IF (r2 = 0.36).
    CONCLUSIONS: Measures of social media engagement with data presented at a national medical meeting were positively correlated with subsequent publication and journal IF after presentation.
    PATIENT SUMMARY: New urological research that was shared more often at a national meeting was more likely to be published in journals that are more highly cited.
    Keywords:  Impact factor; Social media; Twitter
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.05.004
  5. PLoS One. 2019 ;14(5): e0216408
    Díaz-Faes AA, Bowman TD, Costas R.
      'Social media metrics' are bursting into science studies as emerging new measures of impact related to scholarly activities. However, their meaning and scope as scholarly metrics is still far from being grasped. This research seeks to shift focus from the consideration of social media metrics around science as mere indicators confined to the analysis of the use and visibility of publications on social media to their consideration as metrics of interaction and circulation of scientific knowledge across different communities of attention, and particularly as metrics that can also be used to characterize these communities. Although recent research efforts have proposed tentative typologies of social media users, no study has empirically examined the full range of Twitter user's behavior within Twitter and disclosed the latent dimensions in which activity on Twitter around science can be classified. To do so, we draw on the overall activity of social media users on Twitter interacting with research objects collected from the Altmetic.com database. Data from over 1.3 million unique users, accounting for over 14 million tweets to scientific publications, is analyzed. Based on an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, four latent dimensions are identified: 'Science Engagement', 'Social Media Capital', 'Social Media Activity' and 'Science Focus'. Evidence on the predominant type of users by each of the four dimensions is provided by means of VOSviewer term maps of Twitter profile descriptions. This research breaks new ground for the systematic analysis and characterization of social media users' activity around science.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216408
  6. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 May;98(21): e15785
    Hong JU, Kim JH, Lee KH, Lee M, Hyun IY, Cho SG, Kim YJ, Lee HY, Kim GR.
      To evaluate the characteristics, trend, and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine.We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2016 in the field of nuclear medicine. The following data were extracted: journal name, impact factor, type of study, topics with cancer type, imaging modalities, authors (number, country, affiliation, presence of nuclear medicine specialists and statisticians, discordance between the first and corresponding authors), funding, methodological quality, methods used for quality assessment, and statistical methods.We included 185 nuclear medicine articles. Meta-analyses (n = 164; 88.6%) were published about 7 times more frequently than systematic reviews. Oncology was the most commonly studied topic (n = 125, 67.6%). The first authors were most frequently located in China (n = 73; 39.5%). PET was the most commonly used modality (n = 150; 81.1%). Both the number of authors and the ratio of discordance between the first and corresponding authors tended to progressively increase over time.The mean AMSTAR score increased over time (5.77 in 2005-2008, 6.71 in 2009-2012, and 7.44 in 2013-2016). The proportion of articles with quality assessment increased significantly (20/26 in 2005-2008, 54/65 in 2009-2012, and 79/94 in 2013-2016). The most commonly used assessment tool was quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (n = 85; 54.9%).The number and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine have significantly increased over the review period; however, the quality of these articles varies. Efforts to overcome specific weaknesses of the methodologies can provide opportunities for quality improvement.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015785
  7. ALTEX. 2019 May 16.
    Van der Mierden S, Tsaioun K, Bleich A, Leenaars CHC.
      Systematic Reviews (SRs) hold promise for implementing the 3Rs in animal sciences: they can retrieve available alternative models, help refining experiments, and identify insufficiencies, or an excess of, scientific knowledge on a particular topic. Unfortunately, SRs can be labour- and time-intensive, especially the reference screening and data extraction phases. Fortunately, there are several software tools available that help make screening faster and easier. However, it is not always clear which features the tools offer. Therefore, a feature analysis was performed to compare different reference screening tools as objectively as possible. This analysis enables researchers to select the most appropriate tool for their needs. Fifteen different tools were compared: CADIMA, Covidence, DistillerSR, Endnote, Endnote using Bramer's method, EROS, HAWC, Microsoft Excel, Excel using VonVille's method, Microsoft Word, Rayyan, RevMan, SyRF, SysRev.com, and SWIFT Active Screener. Their support of 21 features was tested. Features were categorised as mandatory, desirable, and optional. DistillerSR, Covidence, and SWIFT Active Screener are the tools that support all mandatory features. These tools are preferred for screening references, but none of them are free. The best scoring free tool is Rayyan, which lacks one mandatory function: distinct title/abstract and full-text phases. The lowest scoring tools are those not specifically designed for SRs, like Microsoft Word and Endnote. Their use can only be advised for small and simple SRs. A well-informed selection of SR screening tools will benefit review quality and speed, which can contribute to the advancement of the 3Rs in animal studies.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1902131
  8. PeerJ. 2019 ;7 e6859
    Hou D, Bi X, Mao Z, Fan Y, Hu X, Li X.
      Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the changes of development trends and research hotspots of biomaterials research from 2013 to 2017, which can identify the general information of papers and explore the changes of research content, thus providing perspectives for the development of biomaterials in China and other countries.Methods: Data of the paper were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection, and then analyzed by the bibliometric and CiteSpace visualization analysis.
    Results: It was found that a total of 3,839 related papers had been published from the year 2013 to 2017. The analysis of the articles showed that the annual quantity and quality of the articles in the biomaterials research have been increasing since 2013, and the Wang L / Chinese Academy of Sciences were the most productive author/institution. Meanwhile, the keywords "in vitro", "scaffold", "nanoparticle" , "mechanical property", and "biocompatibility" have the relatively higher frequency, and the keywords "apatite", "deposition", and "surface modification" have the strongest burst citation.
    Conclusions: After statistics and analysis, we found that biomaterials is a promising research field. The study may be helpful in understanding research trends in this field.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Biomaterials; General information; Research trends; Visualization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6859
  9. Iran J Public Health. 2019 Apr;48(4): 621-631
    Wu W, Xie Y, Liu X, Gu Y, Zhang Y, Tu X, Tan X.
      Background: Studies related to the prevention and control of myopia in adolescents have increased rapidly, but only a few have measured the levels of scientific collaboration among authors, institutions and countries in this field. Thus, in this study, we aimed to reveal the status and levels of scientific collaboration in this field.Methods: The research population included all published papers in the field of adolescent myopia prevention and control indexed in the Web of Science databases from 1997-2016. The co-authorship networks were drawn using SATI (Statistical Analysis Toolkit for Informetrics), Ucinet and VOS viewer (Visualisation of Similarities viewer). Active authors and some measures of co-author network, including degree centrality, closeness, betweenness, density and diameter, were also assessed.
    Results: Overall, 610 records were obtained, and a number of publications developed through an increase in different collaboration types, with cooperation among authors and institutions as the most apparent ones. The top ten active authors and institutions were identified. The density of cooperative networks of the top 70 authors and the first 69 institutions were 0.043 and 0.011, respectively, with corresponding diameters of five and six, respectively. Seven distinct clusters formed the cooperation network among 38 countries. The top three clusters were centered in China, the United States and Australia, also identified as the most productive countries.
    Conclusion: The flow of information is slow and the collaboration among authors and institutions in the network are not close enough. Thus, multiple collaboration types should be encouraged in this field, especially among countries.
    Keywords:  Collaboration; Myopia; Prevention and control; Social network analysis
  10. BMC Public Health. 2019 May 22. 19(1): 625
    Al-Jabi SW.
      BACKGROUND: Leishmaniasis is a parasitic disease caused by a protozoan of the Leishmania genus, and is considered a neglected tropical disease. It still remains a main public health concern at global level and in Arab world mainly in low-income countries. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the Arab world's growing contribution to global leishmaniasis research.METHODS: This study describes a bibliometric review of all leishmaniasis research publications published between January 1998 and December 2017 indexed on the Scopus database.
    RESULTS: The total number of publications published at global level was 17,570 papers, which achieves an average annual productivity of 878.50 papers publications. Brazil was responsible for the greatest output with the total number of publications of 3865 followed by the Unites States (n = 2729), India (n = 2119), the United Kingdom (n = 1363), and Spain (n = 1274). By limiting the analysis to the publications that have been published by Arab world, the research productivity was 993 papers, which represents 5.65% of total research output at global level in research regarding leishmaniasis. Tunisia was responsible for the greatest output from Arab world with the total number of publications of 297 followed by Sudan (n = 192), Saudi Arabia (n = 131), Morocco (n = 119) and Egypt (n = 67). Since 1998, the growth of publications on leishmaniasis fluctuates, overall showing a rising trend in both global and Arab world. There is a highly significant correlation between publication productivity related to leishmaniasis at global level and the Arab world (r = 0.936; p-value< 0.001). Leishmaniasis treatment, intracellular mechanism of infection, and lifecycle of leishmania are the major current hot topics for the research in this subject at global level and the Arab world.
    CONCLUSIONS: The current study presents a novel review of the current Arab leishmaniasis-related research, and how these results are related to worldwide output. In comparison to the global research output, the Arab world produced less leishmaniasis research. The data presented in the current study by this innovative approach may serve relevant researchers to direct the global leishmaniasis research to Arab counties in which leishmaniasis is endemic.
    Keywords:  Arab world; Bibliometric; Leishmania; Leishmaniasis; Scopus
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6969-9
  11. Oman Med J. 2019 May;34(3): 184-193
    Asokan GV, Ramadhan T, Ahmed E, Sanad H.
      Objectives: In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a list of global priority pathogens (GPP) - 12 species of bacteria with critical, high, and medium antibiotic resistance (AR). In this review, our goal was to quantify published reports of AR in this group of pathogens using the Medline-PubMed databases. We also sought to quantify, compare and rank the top five reported AR pathogens globally, regionally and for Bahrain, and describe the evidence from Bahrain for the purpose of infection prevention and control, and to help research and development.Methods: We conducted a bibliometric, retrospective, descriptive review to search the Medline-PubMed database for reports specific to the WHO GPP list published up to 19 April 2017.
    Results: Our search revealed 42 136 documents with an increase in the last five years. Globally, there were more high tier pathogen documents (33 640) than critical (6405) and medium (2091). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was the highest reported, followed by extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) resistant Enterobacteriaceae and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Nine out of the 12 pathogens were gram-negative. MRSA was the topmost documented pathogen globally and in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region zone of classification, whereas ESBL resistant Enterobacteriaceae ranked the top in Bahrain. There were two critical tier pathogens in the global, GCC region, and Bahrain. We found 14 articles from Bahrain, four articles on ESBL resistant Enterobacteriaceae, three on MRSA, two on carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, and five on different pathogens.
    Conclusions: Our findings suggest the need for a comprehensive, multipronged policy response particularly at the time when the antibiotic pipeline is nearly empty. We recommend thoughtful, integrated infection prevention and control strategies to address the immediate and long-term threats of AR in Bahrain and the GCC.
    Keywords:  Antibiotic Resistance; Bahrain; Middle East; Pathogen Transmission
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2019.37
  12. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Apr 23. pii: ntz059. [Epub ahead of print]
    Perry CL, Creamer MR, Chaffee BW, Unger JB, Sutfin EL, Kong G, Shang C, Clendennen SL, Krishnan-Sarin S, Pentz MA.
      The Tobacco Regulatory Science Program is a collaborative research effort between the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2013, the NIH funded 14 Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS), which serve as partners in establishing research, training, and professional development programs to guide FDA. Each of the fourteen TCORS, and two other NIH-funded research programs, the Center for the Evaluation of Nicotine in Cigarettes (CENIC) and the Consortium on Methods Evaluating Tobacco (COMET), pursued specific research themes relevant to FDA's priorities. A key mandate for FDA is to reduce tobacco use among young people. This article is a review of the peer-reviewed research, including published and in-press manuscripts, from the TCORS, CENIC, and COMET, which provides specific data or other findings on youth (ages 10-18 years) and/or young adults (ages 18-34 years), from 2013 to 2018. Citations of all TCORS, CENIC, and COMET articles from September 2013 to December 2017 were collected by the TCORS coordinating center, the Center for Evaluation and Coordination of Training and Research. Additional citations up to April 30, 2018 were requested from the principal investigators. A scoring rubric was developed and implemented to assess study type, primary theme, and FDA priority area addressed by each article. The major subareas and findings from each priority area are presented. There were 766 articles in total, with 258 (34%) focusing on youth and/or young adults. Findings relevant to FDA from this review concern impact analysis, toxicity, health effects, addiction, marketing influences, communications, and behavior.IMPLICATIONS: The Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science, CENIC, and COMET have had a high output of scientific articles since 2013. These Centers are unique in that the FDA supports science specifically to guide future regulatory actions. The 258 articles that have focused on youth and/or young adults are providing data for regulatory actions by the FDA related to the key priority areas such as the addictiveness of non-cigarette products, the effects of exposure to electronic cigarette marketing on initiation and cessation, and the impact of flavored products on youth and young adult tobacco use. Future regulations to reduce tobacco use will be guided by the cumulative evidence. These Centers are one innovative mechanism to promote important outcomes to advance tobacco regulatory science.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntz059
  13. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019 May 21.
    Zhang Y, Quan L, Xiao B, Du L.
      Objective The objective of this study was to analyze the 100 most cited studies on vaccine. Methods A comprehensive search of studies on vaccine was performed in the Web of Science Core Collection without year or language restrictions. The 100 top-cited studies were retrieved after screening abstracts or full-texts. The outcomes of bibliometric analysis included citation time, citation density, journal name, impact factor, publication year, article type, category, open access, and country of origin. Results The citation times for the 100 top-cited studies ranged from 593 to 2406, with a median citation times of 834. The 100 top-cited studies were published in 32 journals, and the journal with the most studies was New England Journal of Medicine (n=20). They were published between 1969 and 2012, and 4 authors published at least 2 studies as the first author. The USA contributed the most studies (n=70), followed by Switzerland(n=4), England(n=4) and Finland (n=4). Eighty-one studies were published as Article, while 19 were Review. Eleven studies were about vaccine for therapeutic and 68 studies were about vaccine for prophylactic. Conclusions This is the first bibliometric analysis to provide a detailed list of the 100 most-cited studies on vaccine and helps to recognize the quality of the works, discoveries, and trends in the field.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Citation; Citation analysis; Top-cited; Vaccine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2019.1614398
  14. Food Chem. 2019 Oct 01. pii: S0308-8146(19)30816-7. [Epub ahead of print]294 448-457
    Kamdem JP, Duarte AE, Lima KRR, Rocha JBT, Hassan W, Barros LM, Roeder T, Tsopmo A.
      This study presents a general bibliometric overview of the major scientific developments that have been published in Food Chemistry, since its first issue (1976). The bibliometric data were retrieved from the scopus database. The review identifies the most cited, productive authors, and the leading institutions and countries of the journal, based on bibliometric indicators. The research hot spots in the period from 1976 to 2016 were identified by using the visualization of similarities software (Vosviewer), and the graphical mapping of the authors was developed to visualize networks between authors. A total of 20,050 publications was analysed and the most influential subjects covered by the journal were identified. Topics related to the antioxidant components of foods and the analytical quantification of contaminants or components of food were identified as being most relevant.The bibliometric analyses indicate a significant evolution of the journal in terms of publications, scientometric performance and themes covered.
    Keywords:  Citations count; Collaboration network; Food chemistry; Scopus; VOSviewer; h-Index
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.05.021
  15. Nurs Inq. 2019 May 22. e12296
    Chinn PL, Nicoll LH, Carter-Templeton HD, Oermann MH.
      Development of the knowledge base for a profession depends on research and scholarship that builds on the insights and work of scholars within the discipline and is disseminated through the literature. The purpose of this study was to examine a unique collection of 79 articles selected by editors as representative of their nursing journals. Articles were assessed for congruence with long-standing values and conceptual definitions of nursing, and the extent to which they built on prior literature published in nursing. Articles were scored based on whether they reflected four characteristics of nursing as a discipline (holism, social context, goal of health, and consistency with common definitions of nursing); an abstract score on the extent to which the title, abstract, or keywords indicated a general focus on nursing; and a distinction score based on whether the article distinguished nurses or nursing from other providers. Fifty of the articles received an article score of 4, indicating all four disciplinary characteristics were present in the article's content. While the majority of the articles were congruent with fundamental nursing values and perspectives, only 28% of the sources cited were from nursing sources. The lack of citations to nursing literature, coupled with an assessment that reveals gaps in substantive content that builds on nursing knowledge, raises questions about the future of nursing perspectives in the literature.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; focus of the discipline; theory
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12296
  16. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 May 20.
    Liu W, Wu L, Zhang Y, Shi L, Yang X.
      OBJECTIVES: The term oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) was recommended at the WHO workshop held in 2005 and published in 2007, and increasingly large number of papers related to OPMD are published. The objective of the bibliometric analysis was to investigate the citation characteristics and analyze research trends of OPMD.METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed and identified in the Scopus database since 2007 for the bibliometric list of OPMD in the syntax.
    RESULTS: A total of 795 papers on OPMD were retrieved and the total number of citations was 8870. The mean number of citations is 11.2, with a range of 0 to 580. A substantial increasing tread in the number of citation is observed since 2007. Leukoplakia (42%) and lichen planus (23%) were the two most individual disorders among the general OPMD. A controlled/comparative study (43%) and a retrospective study (16%) were the two most study designs. India (n = 267) and the UK (n = 99) were the two most contributing countries. Tobacco and alcohol use and betel quid chewing (n = 351) are the most common keywords. Notably, early detection and diagnosis of oral cancer (n = 255) and biomarkers of oral carcinogenesis (n = 178) top the list, which may indicate a trend of key topics.
    CONCLUSIONS: The current study for the first time reported the bibliometric characteristics and research trends of the papers on OPMD in the syntax.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The bibliometric analysis highlights the key topics and studies which have shaped the understanding and management of OPMD.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Oral potentially malignant disorders; Research trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02959-0