Advertisement

Worldwide scientific production in obstetrics: a bibliometric analysis

  • Ana M. Palacios-Marqués
  • Concepción Carratala-MunueraEmail author
  • Juan C. Martínez-Escoriza
  • Vicente F Gil-Guillen
  • Adriana Lopez-Pineda
  • Jose A Quesada
  • Domingo Orozco-Beltrán
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Randomised clinical trials are considered to be the most reliable study design for assessing the efficacy and safety of health interventions.

Aims

To analyse worldwide obstetrics research carried out through randomised clinical trials, from 2002 to 2013.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was performed. Publications on obstetrics that were published journals indexed in the MEDLINE database from 2002 to 2013 were analysed. The major medical subject headings used in the search were obstetrics, pregnancy complications and obstetrics surgical procedures. The main study outcome was index of research productivity.

Results

Our study search strategy yielded a total of 142,659 articles and 9967 clinical trials. The growth rate of scientific production in obstetrics during this period was 55.43% (n = 5094). The growth rate of production of randomised clinical trials in this specialty, meanwhile, was 97.84% (n = 544). Most of the identified authors (n = 22,622, 71.21%) published only one paper during the study period. Patterns of co-authorship among the 20 most productive authors were identified. After applying Bradford’s law, six journals in the nucleus (the most prolific journals) were found. Of all the clinical trials in obstetrics published between 2002 and 2013, 10.3% were published in journals belonging to categories other than Obstetrics and Gynecology. The most common research topic in 2002 and 2013 was the use of analgesia and anesthesia in obstetrics.

Conclusions

Total scientific production rate in obstetrics increased from 2002 to 2013, especially randomised clinical trials. However, randomised clinical trials continue to represent a small proportion of total production.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Gynaecology Obstetrics Randomised clinical trials 

Notes

Author contribution

AM Palacios-Marqués: project development, data collection, manuscript writing

C Carratala-Munuera: project development, data collection

J C Martínez-Escoriza: project development, data collection

V F Gil-Guillen: data analysis, manuscript writing

A Lopez-Pineda: data review, manuscript writing/editing

J A Quesada: data review, data analysis

D Orozco-Beltrán: data review, data analysis

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This is a bibliometric analysis not involving human subjects and is therefore exempt from institutional review board approval. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

11845_2018_1954_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Online Resource 1 (DOCX 16 kb)
11845_2018_1954_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Online Resource 2 (DOCX 19 kb)
11845_2018_1954_MOESM3_ESM.docx (150 kb)
Online Resource 3 (DOCX 150 kb)
11845_2018_1954_MOESM4_ESM.docx (59 kb)
Online Resource 4 (DOCX 59 kb)
11845_2018_1954_MOESM5_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Online Resource 5 (DOCX 20 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    MEDLINE/PubMed Resources. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health, Health & Human Services- U.S. List of Journals Indexed for MEDLINE. Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ (Accessed May12, 2017)
  2. 2.
    Hong SJ, Yoon DY, Cho YK et al (2016) Characteristics and quality of radiologic randomized controlled trials: a bibliometric analysis between 1995 and 2014. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206(5):917–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    García-García P, López-Muñoz F, Callejo J et al (2005) Evolution of Spanish scientific production in international obstetrics and gynecology journals during the period 1986-2002. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 123:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu XF, Hao JF, Xin L (2013 Nov) Scientific publications in obstetrics and gynecology journals from China, 2000-2009. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 123(2):96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domröse CM, Keyver-Paik MD, Lorenzen H, Kuhn WC, Mallmann MR (2016 Feb) Development of obstetrical and gynecological journals, 2007 to 2013: a trend analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293(2):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aleixandre-Benavent R, Simon C, Fauser BCJM (2015) Trends in clinical reproductive medicine research: 10 years of growth. Fertil Steril 104:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stockmann C, Sherwin CMT, Koren G et al (2014) Characteristics and publication patterns of obstetric studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. J Clin Pharmacol 54(4):432–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandt JS, Downing AC, Howard DL et al (2010) Citation classics in obstetrics and gynecology: the 100 most frequently cited journal articles in the last 50 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(355):e1–e7Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carratalá Munuera MC, Orozco-Beltrán D, Gil Guillén VF et al (2012) Análisis bibliométrico de la producción científica internacional sobre Atención Primaria. Aten Primaria 44(11):651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prof dr BWJ Mol. [Internet]. Academisch Medisch Centrum. Available online at: https://www.amc.nl (Accessed May 12, 2017)
  11. 11.
    PIB (US$ a precios actuales). Data. Table. [Internet]. El Banco Mundial [the World Bank] Available online at: https://www.bancomundial.org (Accessed May 12, 2017)
  12. 12.
    Wei M, Wang W, Zhuang Y (2016) Worldwide research productivity in the field of spine surgery: a 10-year bibliometric analysis. Eur Spine J 25:976–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fedder J, Nielsen GL, Petersen LJ et al (2011) A substantial number of scientific publications originate from non-university hospitals. Dan Med Bull 58(11):A4332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    González de Dios J, Moya M (1997) Indicadores bibliométricos: características y limitaciones en el análisis de la actividad científica. An Esp Pediatr 47(3):235–244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Agulló Martínez A, Aleixandre-Benavent R (1999) Evolución del índice de colaboración de los artículos médicos españoles en la presente centuria. Papeles médicos 8(131):16–20Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Modi P, Hassan A (2008) Teng CJ, et al. “How many cardiac surgeons does it take to write a research article?”: seventy years of authorship proliferation and internationalization in the cardiothoracic surgical literature. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136(1):4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garfield E (1987) 100 citation classics from the Journal of the American Medical Association. JAMA 257:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuroki LM, Allsworth JE, Peipert JF (2009) Methodology and analytic techniques used in clinical research. Obstet Gynecol 114:877–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Domröse CM, Keyver-Paik MD, Lorenzen H et al (2016) Development of obstetrical and gynecological journals, 2007 to 2013: a trend analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293(2):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Künzel W, Kovacs L, Oliviera CF et al (2001) The European way of training and research in obstetrics and gynecology. Prenat Neonatal Med 6:340–349Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana M. Palacios-Marqués
    • 1
  • Concepción Carratala-Munuera
    • 2
    Email author
  • Juan C. Martínez-Escoriza
    • 1
  • Vicente F Gil-Guillen
    • 2
  • Adriana Lopez-Pineda
    • 2
  • Jose A Quesada
    • 2
  • Domingo Orozco-Beltrán
    • 2
  1. 1.Gynaecology and Obstetrics DepartmentHospital General Universitario de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
  2. 2.Cátedra de Medicina de Familia, Clinical Medicine DepartmentMiguel Hernandez UniversityAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations