Using temporal heatmaps to identify worthwhile articles on immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma (ICBM) in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan since 2000: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is a life-threatening form of skin cancer. Due to its remarkable effectiveness, the immune checkpoint blockade is widely used to treat melanoma (ICBM). No research has been conducted on ICBM for identifying the most readable articles. A bibliometric analysis of 100 top-cited ICBM (T100ICBM) in recent decades is required to highlight articles worth reading. METHODS: Based on the Web of Science Core Collection, we summarized the articles on ICBM published in each year from 2000 to 2022, with first authors from Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan (CHT). Using the CJAL score, data extraction and visualization of the distribution of ICBM publications were conducted on 2718, and 100 top-cited articles, respectively. We used the temporal heatmap to identify the most readable articles. Four descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, and prescriptive analytics (called DDPP model) were applied to describe the features of T100ICBM articles. The absolute advantage coefficient was used to determine the dominance extent of the most influential region, institute, department, and author. RESULTS: A total of 2718 publications was included after removing first or corresponding authors who were not affiliated with CHT. Publications by year showed a sharp increase from 2014 onward and either peaked in 2022 or have not yet peaked. It was evident that there was a large difference between the number of publications in provinces/metropolitan cities/regions on CHT. Beijing, Sichuan University, Oncology, and Guo Jun from Beijing are the most prolific and influential region, institute, department, and author. When comparing research achievements to the next productive authors based on the CJAL score, only Dr Jun has a medium effect of dominance (=0.60). On the basis of their consecutive growth in citations over the past 4 years, 20 T100ICBM articles were recommended for readers. CONCLUSION: The field of ICBM is growing rapidly, and Beijing and Sichuan University are taking the lead in CHT. Furthermore, the study provides references for worth-reading articles using the temporal heatmap. Future research hot spots may focus on these 4 themes of immunotherapy, melanoma, metastatic melanoma, regulatory T cells, cells, and activation, which may pave the way for additional study.

The impact of COVID-19 on global health journals: an analysis of impact factor and publication trends.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has affected research productivity across all areas of knowledge. Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 has had a blockbuster effect on journal impact factors (JIFs) and publication trends, while little is known on global health journals. METHODS: Twenty global health journals were included to analyse the impact of COVID-19 on their JIFs and publication trends. Indicator data, including numbers of publications, citations, articles with different types, etc, were extracted from journal websites and Web of Science Core Collection database. The JIFs from 2019 to 2021 were simulated for longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses. Interrupted time-series analysis and non-parametric tests were applied to assess whether COVID-19 had decreased non-COVID-19 publications from January 2018 to June 2022. RESULTS: In 2020, 615 out of 3223 publications were COVID-19 related, accounting for 19.08%. The simulated JIFs of 17 out of 20 journals in 2021 were higher than those in 2019 and 2020. Notably, 18 out of 20 journals had a decrease in their simulated JIFs after excluding COVID-19-related publications. Moreover, 10 out of 20 journals decreased their monthly numbers of non-COVID-19 publications after the COVID-19 outbreak. For all the 20 journals as a whole, after the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2020, the total number of non-COVID-19 publications significantly decreased by 14.2 compared with the previous month (p=0.013), and since then, on average, the publications had decreased by 0.6 per month until June 2022 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has impacted the structure of COVID-19-related publications, the JIFs of global health journals and their numbers of non-COVID-19 publications. Although journals may benefit from increased JIFs, global health journals should avoid relying on a single metric. More follow-up studies including more years of data with a combination of metrics should be conducted to generate more robust evidence.

Research on COVID-19 and its influence on Latin American medical journals impact factor.

INTRODUCTION: The arrival of the pandemic caused by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) exponentially increased scientific production. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the influence of COVID-19-related scientific production on the impact factor values of Latin American medical journals. METHODS: Journals related to the Medicine categories included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were used. Impact factor data from the 2020 and 2021 editions were used to compare the citations received by documents related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A decrease in the impact factor values of the evaluated journals was observed when the citations received by works related to COVID-19 were eliminated. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of information published on COVID-19 and the citations received influenced the impact increase in 2021 JCR.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La llegada de la pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) incrementó exponencialmente la producción científica. OBJETIVO: Analizar la influencia de la producción científica acerca de COVID-19 en los valores del factor de impacto de revistas médicas latinoamericanas. MÉTODOS: Se emplearon las revistas de categorías relacionadas con la medicina del Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Se utilizaron los datos del factor del impacto de las ediciones de 2020 y 2021 para establecer una comparación respecto a las citas recibidas por los documentos relativos a COVID-19. RESULTADOS: Se observó un descenso en los valores del factor de impacto de las revistas evaluadas cuando se eliminan las citas recibidas por los documentos relativos a COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: El volumen de la información publicada sobre COVID-19 y las citas recibidas influyeron en el aumento del impacto en el JCR de 2021.

Trends in the Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis in the COVID-19 Era.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) was first used in the 1970s. Its use is increasingly common in critical care and perioperative settings and has gained newfound prominence during COVID-19. To guide future research, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of ECMO literature. Thomson Reuters Web of Science was searched to March 7, 2021. Articles were ranked by total number of citations. Data was extracted from the 100 most cited papers relevant to ECMO for study design, topic, author, year, and institution. Journal impact factor for 2019 and Eigenfactor scores were also recorded. Our search retrieved a total of 18,802 articles. Median number of citations for the top 100 articles was 220 (range 157-1,819). These were published in 34 journals, with first authors originating from 15 countries. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery had the highest number of articles (n = 9) while Lancet publications had the most citations (n = 3,191). Use of ECMO was most commonly observed in cardiogenic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome. United States had the greatest article output (n = 49). With 10 publications, 2013 was the most prolific year. Using linear regression, when controlled for time since publication, there was no statistically significant relationship between 2019 journal impact factor and number of article citations (p = .09). Top articles in the ECMO literature are of considerable impact and quality. As the United States produced the bulk of the prominent evidence base, and most data were regarding respiratory issues, outsized advances in ECMO may be possible within the United States during the COVID-19 era.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Biomedical Publications and Their Citation Frequency.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in enormous related publications. However, the citation frequency of these documents and their influence on the journal impact factor (JIF) are not well examined. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on biomedical research publications and their citation frequency. METHODS: We searched publications on biomedical research in the Web of Science using the search terms "COVID-19," "SARS-Cov-2," "2019 corona*," "corona virus disease 2019," "coronavirus disease 2019," "novel coronavirus infection" and "2019-ncov." The top 200 journals were defined as those with a higher number of COVID-19 publications than other journals in 2020. The COVID-19 impact ratio was calculated as the ratio of the average number of citations per item in 2021 to the JIF for 2020. RESULTS: The average number of citations for the top 200 journals in 2021, per item published in 2020, was 25.7 (range, 0-270). The average COVID-19 impact ratio was 3.84 (range, 0.26-16.58) for 197 journals that recorded the JIF for 2020. The average JIF ratio for the top 197 journals including the JIFs for 2020 and 2021 was 1.77 (range, 0.68-8.89). The COVID-19 impact ratio significantly correlated with the JIF ratio (r = 0.403, P = 0.010). Twenty-five Korean journals with a COVID-19 impact ratio > 1.5 demonstrated a higher JIF ratio (1.31 ± 0.39 vs. 1.01 ± 0.18, P < 0.001) than 33 Korean journals with a lower COVID-19 impact ratio. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic infection has significantly impacted the trends in biomedical research and the citation of related publications.

Characteristics of Retracted Research Articles About COVID-19 vs Other Topics.

This cross-sectional study compares the author and journal characteristics of retracted articles on COVID-19 with retracted articles from other topics.

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols.

BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. METHODS: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/.

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.