Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748870
Publication Trends in Pediatric Stone Disease: A Bibliometric Analysis
Tendencias de publicación en la litiasis pediátrica: Un análisis bibliométrico Funding The authors declare that the present study did not receive any funding.
Abstract
Introduction In the pediatric population, the prevalence of stone disease has increased in recent years. We aim to analyze the bibliometric characteristic of available literature on the management of stones in this population.
Methods We performed a search for articles published until December 2019 on the Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases using the keywords children, lithiasis, and stones. We excluded articles involving patients older than 18 years of age and those with non-urological lithiasis. Then, we performed a bibliometric analysis using the original language, year of publication, impact factor (yearly number of citations), and absolute citation count as variables to calculate the impact index (number of sources adjusted for the time since publication).
Results We included 291 articles published between 1940 and December 2019 for analysis. The average number of citations per manuscript was of 15.3 (± 21.9), and the average impact index was of 502 (± 976.4). A total of 4 articles were published before 1970. The evaluation of historical landmarks that could affect citation counts, such as the launch of a journal specialized in pediatric urology (Journal of Pediatric Urology), showed a mean citation count of 23.29 before the first edition, and of 14.96 after (p = 0.0006). The variation on the impact index with the same criteria was of 539.6 before the first edition of the Journal of Pediatric Urology, and of 316.32 after (p = 0.001). The average number of citations before internet access was of 17.9, and, after the internet, of 15.1 (p = 0.17). We also observed a difference in counts regarding languages of publication.
Conclusions The proportional academic productivity on pediatric stone disease demonstrates that citation counts do not reflect the true academic impact of subspecialized topics.
Resumen
Introducción La prevalencia de la urolitiasis en la población pediátrica ha venido aumentando en los últimos años. Este manuscrito busca analizar las características bibliométricas de la literatura disponible sobre el manejo de la urolitiasis pediátrica.
Métodos Realizamos una búsqueda por artículos publicados hasta diciembre de 2019 en las bases de datos Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, Embase y Web of Science con las palabras children, lithiasis, y stones. Excluimos artículos con pacientes mayores de 18 años y litiasis no urológica. Posteriormente, realizamos un análisis bibliométrico utilizando el idioma original, el año de publicación, el factor de impacto (número de citas anuales), y el recuento absoluto de citas para calcular el índice de impacto (número de fuentes ajustadas por el tiempo desde la publicación).
Resultados Analizamos 291 artículos publicados desde 1940 hasta diciembre de 2019. El promedio de citas por artículo fue de 15,3 (± 21,9), y el índice de impacto fue de 502 (± 976,4). Un total de 4 artículos fueron publicados antes de 1970. La evaluación de hitos históricos que pudieran afectar el recuento de citas, como el lanzamiento de una revista de urología pediátrica (Journal of Pediatric Urology), mostró un recuento medio de citas de 23,29 antes de la primera edición, y de 14,96 después (p = 0,0006). La variación del índice de impacto con los mismos criterios fue de 539,6 antes de la primera edición de esta revista, y de 316,32 después (p = 0,001). El promedio de citas antes del acceso a la internet fue de 17,9, y después, de 15,1 (p = 0,17). Observamos también una diferencia en los recuentos respecto a los idiomas de publicación.
Conclusiones La productividad académica sobre la litiasis pediátrica demuestra que los recuentos de citas no reflejan el verdadero impacto académico de los temas subespecializados.
Keywords
urolithiasis - pediatrics - systematic review - journal impact factor - bibliometrics - urologic diseasesPalabras clave
urolitiasis - pediatría - revisión sistemática - factor de impacto de la revista - bibliometría - enfermedades urológicasAvailability of Data and Material
All the data obtained as well as the analysis, are available if requested to the corresponding author.
Authors' Contributions
Conceptualization: NF; methodology: NF, JVC, DV; formal analysis and investigation: NF, NV, JVC, JC, GT; writing – original draft, review, and editing: NF, DV, JVC, JC, GT; and supervision: NF.
Publication History
Received: 22 December 2021
Accepted: 09 March 2022
Article published online:
28 September 2022
© 2022. Sociedad Colombiana de Urología. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
-
References
- 1 Akın Y, Uçar M, Yücel S. Current medical treatment in pediatric urolithiasis. Turk J Urol 2013; 39 (04) 253-263 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328120 cited2020Jul30 [Internet]
- 2 Clayton DB, Pope JC. The increasing pediatric stone disease problem. Ther Adv Urol 2011; 3 (01) 3-12
- 3 Mavuta Zalula C, Bilali G, Mupepe Kumba A, Mukuku O. Urinary lithiasis in the pediatric age group: Case report and literature review. J Med Res 2017; 3 (01) 11-13 Available from www.medicinearticle.com
- 4 McAdams S, Shukla AR. Pediatric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Predicting successful outcomes. Indian J Urol 2010; 26 (04) 544-548 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21369388
- 5 Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved?. BMJ 1996; 313 (7054): cited2020Jul29 [Internet] 411-413 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2351785/pdf/bmj00555-0043.pdf
- 6 Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics 2015; 105 (03) 1809-1831 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z cited2021Nov22 [Internet]
- 7 Fernandez N, Puerto A, Azuero A. et al. Historical bibliometric analysis of the top cited articles on vesicoureteral reflux 1950-2016, and incorporation of a novel impact index. J Pediatr Urol 2018; 14 (05) 446.e1-446.e9
- 8 Greenwood DC. Reliability of journal impact factor rankings. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 48 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18005435 cited2021Nov22 [Internet]
- 9 Fernandez N, Farhat WA. A comprehensive analysis of robot-assisted surgery uptake in the pediatric surgical discipline. Front Surg 2019; 6: 9
- 10 Urological Association American. American Urological Association, The State of Urology Workforce and Practice in the United States. 2018
- 11 Rickard M, Hannick JH, Fernandez N, Koyle MA, MacMurdo K, Lorenzo AJ. Publication trends in pediatric renal transplantation: Bibliometric analysis of literature from 1950 to 2017. Pediatr Transplant 2019; 23 (05) e13455
- 12 Penido MGMG, Tavares Mde S. Pediatric primary urolithiasis: Symptoms, medical management and prevention strategies. World J Nephrol 2015; 4 (04) 444-454 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26380196 cited2020Jul30 [Internet]
- 13 Cundy TP, Harley SJD, Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Khurana S. Global trends in paediatric robot-assisted urological surgery: a bibliometric and Progressive Scholarly Acceptance analysis. J Robot Surg 2018; 12 (01) 109-115
- 14 O'Kelly F, Nason GJ, McLoughlin LC, Flood HD, Thornhill JA. A comparative bibliometric analysis of the top 150 cited papers in hypospadiology (1945-2013). J Pediatr Urol 2015; 11 (02) 85.e1-85.e11